Why SHOULD a professional consider the X100?

Well a professional would demand an APSC or larger sensor, and a viewfinder. That said, I think it was aimed at professionals on their days off, -a quality 'compact' for personal/recreational use.

For a canon or Nikon pro it would be hard to figure why it would be used at work.
Well I'm looking forward to using it next week at a wedding and for many weddings following that. 2 Canon 5DIIs on either shoulder with 24mm and 50mm lenses attached, and the X100 around my neck. The weight of the X100 will not be noticed and and it's ideal for those close up pj shots.
I can't figure out why you would need an x100 around your neck if you are already using 2 full frame digital SLRs?
My D700 with essential lenses is heavy and usually is carried with only a sub-set of its lenses. Its versatility is unmatched on a planned shoot and I can select the glass to match the needs of the shoot. However, after the working day is done, one wants to still have access to a high-quality camera without the need for a domestic Sherpa to lug it and its essential accessories.

The X100 has a fine Fujinon lens with a focal length I have found to be ideal in a carry-everywhere camera, over a customized APS-C sensor, thus capable of excellent quality when there is nothing specific to shoot. I have used Fujinons on 8×10 cameras and always liked them a lot. If Fuji does as well with this one, I will be very contented. I do not want to lug my D700 system with me when I walk to the drug-store or grocery store. I don't want to have a huge camera bag full of gear when just meeting friends for lunch. However, I do want the capability of shooting very high quality images.

At the moment the choice is lug the weight—or deal with the tiny sensor and small-sensor image-quality with a P&S. I frequently do carry my Fuji 3D stereo camera for this purpose and find that I am almost always shooting at the equivalent of 35mm. It produces decent quality in good light, but is barely usable when light levels drop. It only shoots .MPO files which become JPEGs when they are extracted—no RAW, which I sorely miss.

The key to great street photography is to be inconspicuous. Haul out the D700 and the world is aware there is a photographer here. This reduces the level of luck, as some mug for the camera and others duck. During film days, when not on a shoot, I and every other shooter I knew carried a compact rangefinder camera.

I started with a Retina, moved to a superb Konica S3 and eventually to a Nikon L35. All had lenses in the 35mm focal-length range. When shooting street with medium format, I carried a Plaubel Makina 67 with an 80mm f/2.8 Nikkor of incredible quality. That is equivalent to a 40mm lens. All were as small and light as practical. All were fully self-contained, no need for additional equipment, such as a light-meter.

Above all, none attracted attention, not even the Plaubel—which is small for a medium format camera, but still large for a camera. The X100 shares their stealth. All were capable of producing images of publication quality. All ensured that I and fellow shooters always had a quality camera with us at all times. Days might go by with never an exposure, but when an opportunity presented itself, a camera was at hand. Dozens of images from these small cameras were published, and one of my favorite images of all times was shot with the Konica, at night while just having left the restaurant on the streets of New York. I really could have used ISO6400.



The X100 shares the mitochondrial DNA with these small, high quality, self-contained cameras. It is simply what these cameras have evolved to in 2011. It is the camera that has been missing since I began shooting digitally a dozen years ago. On the street and when photographing friends, it will go largely unnoticed. At 445 g, it is heavy enough to hold steady, but light enough to barely be noticed in my belt pouch. I have done tens of thousands of exposures with optical finder cameras just like it, and it will be very comfortable from the moment I un-box it.

I will still use the D700 when a shoot is scheduled and I can take advantage of its quality and versatility. I will still use the Fuji stereo camera when I want stereo imaging. The rest of the time the X100 will live in my pouch and in my hands.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
anyone here ever heard of the Canon G9, G11 or G12? Small, professional features, great IQ. But then, its not as "cute".
Yes, of course.

My current camera is a G11 which I have loved using for the past 18 months, but I am upgrading to an X100 which has a much bigger sensor; a faster lens; better low light shooting and the ability to control DOF, not to mention an OVF in a different league from that on the G series.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think my G11 is really 'cute' and will be keeping it as my backup camera.

--
Stephen
 
Makes you think all those pros who do weddings must have it wrong then?

You have your formal shots and your candid ones. It takes a unique style to capture the candid ones. Maybe you should work on that?

It's not the size of the camera - it's how you use it. I can't recall asking any of the wedding guests I shot to pose for a candid shot - with or without flash.

Zoooming
It is a DSLR that looks like a rangefinder.

When photographing people on the street or at wedding I have found that large or professional looking gear attracts the wrong kind of attention and turned off people who don't want their photograph taken.

That is why for years I often used a M6. I also never used a flash in those situations, and that is why I used only a 35 mm 1.4 ASPH lens and TRI-X. But as with all rangefinders that I owned over the last 40 years, I was never 100% sure about the framing, filter effects, or lens flare.
 
I thought the last poster was talking about weddings where you'd imagine the photographer would continue with his 'real' gear as opposed to the 'on the street' use of the X100.

It would be harder to take a candid wedding portrait with an X100 compared to a 5DMKII or 1D series with a 70-200 on board. Give me the zoom any time.

Zoooming
Well a professional would demand an APSC or larger sensor, and a viewfinder. That said, I think it was aimed at professionals on their days off, -a quality 'compact' for personal/recreational use.

For a canon or Nikon pro it would be hard to figure why it would be used at work.
Well I'm looking forward to using it next week at a wedding and for many weddings following that. 2 Canon 5DIIs on either shoulder with 24mm and 50mm lenses attached, and the X100 around my neck. The weight of the X100 will not be noticed and and it's ideal for those close up pj shots.
I can't figure out why you would need an x100 around your neck if you are already using 2 full frame digital SLRs?
My D700 with essential lenses is heavy and usually is carried with only a sub-set of its lenses. Its versatility is unmatched on a planned shoot and I can select the glass to match the needs of the shoot. However, after the working day is done, one wants to still have access to a high-quality camera without the need for a domestic Sherpa to lug it and its essential accessories.

The X100 has a fine Fujinon lens with a focal length I have found to be ideal in a carry-everywhere camera, over a customized APS-C sensor, thus capable of excellent quality when there is nothing specific to shoot. I have used Fujinons on 8×10 cameras and always liked them a lot. If Fuji does as well with this one, I will be very contented. I do not want to lug my D700 system with me when I walk to the drug-store or grocery store. I don't want to have a huge camera bag full of gear when just meeting friends for lunch. However, I do want the capability of shooting very high quality images.

At the moment the choice is lug the weight—or deal with the tiny sensor and small-sensor image-quality with a P&S. I frequently do carry my Fuji 3D stereo camera for this purpose and find that I am almost always shooting at the equivalent of 35mm. It produces decent quality in good light, but is barely usable when light levels drop. It only shoots .MPO files which become JPEGs when they are extracted—no RAW, which I sorely miss.

The key to great street photography is to be inconspicuous. Haul out the D700 and the world is aware there is a photographer here. This reduces the level of luck, as some mug for the camera and others duck. During film days, when not on a shoot, I and every other shooter I knew carried a compact rangefinder camera.

I started with a Retina, moved to a superb Konica S3 and eventually to a Nikon L35. All had lenses in the 35mm focal-length range. When shooting street with medium format, I carried a Plaubel Makina 67 with an 80mm f/2.8 Nikkor of incredible quality. That is equivalent to a 40mm lens. All were as small and light as practical. All were fully self-contained, no need for additional equipment, such as a light-meter.

Above all, none attracted attention, not even the Plaubel—which is small for a medium format camera, but still large for a camera. The X100 shares their stealth. All were capable of producing images of publication quality. All ensured that I and fellow shooters always had a quality camera with us at all times. Days might go by with never an exposure, but when an opportunity presented itself, a camera was at hand. Dozens of images from these small cameras were published, and one of my favorite images of all times was shot with the Konica, at night while just having left the restaurant on the streets of New York. I really could have used ISO6400.



The X100 shares the mitochondrial DNA with these small, high quality, self-contained cameras. It is simply what these cameras have evolved to in 2011. It is the camera that has been missing since I began shooting digitally a dozen years ago. On the street and when photographing friends, it will go largely unnoticed. At 445 g, it is heavy enough to hold steady, but light enough to barely be noticed in my belt pouch. I have done tens of thousands of exposures with optical finder cameras just like it, and it will be very comfortable from the moment I un-box it.

I will still use the D700 when a shoot is scheduled and I can take advantage of its quality and versatility. I will still use the Fuji stereo camera when I want stereo imaging. The rest of the time the X100 will live in my pouch and in my hands.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
Well a professional would demand an APSC or larger sensor, and a viewfinder. That said, I think it was aimed at professionals on their days off, -a quality 'compact' for personal/recreational use.

For a canon or Nikon pro it would be hard to figure why it would be used at work.
Well I'm looking forward to using it next week at a wedding and for many weddings following that. 2 Canon 5DIIs on either shoulder with 24mm and 50mm lenses attached, and the X100 around my neck. The weight of the X100 will not be noticed and and it's ideal for those close up pj shots.
I can't figure out why you would need an x100 around your neck if you are already using 2 full frame digital SLRs?
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
The focal length of the X100 is between the other 2 and is ideal for the kind of shots I prefer. It's also less intimidating when mixing with guests. Besides it's small and light so why not?

--
---------------------------------------------
Regards,
AmbientMick
http://www.michaelstringer.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelstringerphotography/
 
--
Frank
http://www.sidewalkshadows.com

All photos shot in downtown Manhattan unless otherwise noted.
Thanks in advance for the kindness of your comments or critiques.
 
An X100 could be a very welcome addition to the pro's arsenal of gear. It has something the big guns don't have: it's small and silent. Still, it's image quality appears to be quite good. If it's resonsive as well, I'll have two of 'em.

Using a X100 as the only camera for something like a wedding would be a rather unusual approach. Something, only true documentary photographers could get away with. If your clients expect "funky fisheye shots", "creamy f 1.2 bookeh portraits", and the like, you better bring some DSLRs to the wedding. Also, if your subjects wait to be posed by their creative maestroes, having a near-silent and small camera might even be contra-productive. Rather, bring a medium format DSLR to impress those afficinados.
Frank
 
lnbolch wrote:

...one of my favorite images of all times was shot with the Konica, at night while just having left the restaurant on the streets of New York. I really could have used ISO6400.
Larry, that is an amazing shot!

BTW have to agree with you. I carried a Canon QL17 with me and after that an Olympus Stylus Epic with a fixed 35/2 lens. Both gave superb quality images. I look forward to getting my X100
 
Although I am personally interested in the X100 for event work in close quarters and some street shooting, Fuji keeps stressing the professional aspect of the thing.

Why?

What is so professional about the package that one should invest in it?
  • Joe Pennant
Why obssess? Looks like a great but somewhat pricey package. How many times have you seen 'great light' and had no camera with you? ;-)
 
Very few times, even if its a P&S or camera phone. :)

A professional chooses his or her equipment with great care, and it has to help the professional do their work while adding to the bottom line. Is the X100 up to that task?

For a pro - the cost of equipment is an investment, in both money and time. And if the equipment isnt up to snuff, it becomes a serious waste of both.

Fuji is pushing the X100 as professional grade, and at first glance - that claim seems somewhat suspect by the fixed focal length of the lens & generic flash choices (flash is made Sunpak). The Sony NEX system would seem a better choice. So the question has to be asked - is it a toy or is it a useful tool?

Fuji is positioning it as the second coming of the Leica Rangefinders, which is all well & good. But if professionals are going to drop coin, theyre not simply going to use it as a status symbol. To be honest, Im hoping the X100 is less a Leica than the true second coming of the Fuji F30/F31 which BECAME a professionals tool (and is still in high demand) because of its low light capabilities, used often for surreptitious shooting indoors at events and backstage.

If Fuji positioned their marketing by saying "This is a F31 engineered like a Leica" then you'd see professionals willing pick up several at a time.
Why obssess? Looks like a great but somewhat pricey package. How many times have you seen 'great light' and had no camera with you? ;-)
 
Fuji is pushing the X100 as professional grade, and at first glance - that claim seems somewhat suspect by the fixed focal length of the lens
I know a number of real pros and all of them have at least one (most more) prime lens that cost more than this camera alone. Fixed focal length and "professionalism" aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Makes you think all those pros who do weddings must have it wrong then?

"You have your formal shots and your candid ones. It takes a unique style to capture the candid ones. Maybe you should work on that?

It's not the size of the camera - it's how you use it. I can't recall asking any of the wedding guests I shot to pose for a candid shot - with or without flash.

Zoooming "

Interesting point but maybe you are assuming to much.

Back when I did weddings, I used 6x7 and 6x9 for wedding formals with studio strobes (copying my mentor Monte Zucker's style) and 35mm for used only for table shots at receptions and behind the scenes candids by my assistant. Lucky for me at most receptions the guests were under the influence of the wine and beer and did not care about the photographer using a flash or not. I also learned not to photograph people when they are eating.

But for those special emotional scenes the slapping a SLR mirror was too much a distraction and often flash was not allowed like during the ceremony I used the M6. M6 came in handy for those times when you wanted to be invisible, when the shots were not posed when the tears on the bride's father face were real. I would never pose my subjects, only change the window lighting source.

For the ceremony, I would use my 6x7s on remote control far enough away from the action not to be a distraction while allowing me to be in two places at one time. This allowed the ceremony to go uninterrupted and I did not have to run around to get the shot the bride and groom's parents wanted.

These days I see pros using full frame DSLRs and 80-200 2.8 L and 85 1.2 L lenses and getting that right shot, but every one of them seems posed and a little unnatural, even the candids appeared arranged. Something about doing that loses the emotional impact to me. The wedding days becomes a production where the bride and groom are merely actors, in effect losing the true wedding day experience to the wedding photographer direction.

Instead my posed shots occurred elsewhere. Before the wedding I used to shoot the dress rehearsal and get to know the family and friends over dinner. On the wedding day, I used to get the even better images by having the bride and groom return to the church after the guests had left for the reception. This would allow me to photograph them while they were relaxed and I could get up close and get the images that were impossible during the ceremony. At the time, I assumed every wedding photographer did that as well.

After which we would go to the beach (yes living in LA has its good points) and get some great shots something like those David Ziser would create with a remote flash, then off to the reception. I learned to take shots that couple wanted and a few for myself, the artistic images. Often they brought the artistic images.

Under lessons learned, I learned to have my parking spot reserved so I could be close to the entrance when coming in late. I would give the reception location manager a series of 8x10s of the food setup so they could show customers their layout. And they would hand out my card to them as well.

After the beach, I would arrive ahead of the bride and groom. I did this by giving the limo driver a 8x10 of him and the wedding couple in front of his limo in trade for the favor. This would help him sell his services and he would hand out my card as well. After getting tot he reception location, I when would capture the bride and groom arriving at the reception. Personally, I never found the candids to sell well, and mostly it was filler material for the albums to make a 3rd album.

It seems that the parents did all the buying and maybe the grandparents also. They were into the formal portraits and wall size prints and that it why I used 6x7 for small groups and the 6x9 for the group shot entire wedding party and guests. I used to take a lot of Polaroids and give them to the parents and bride and groom as tokens. They often shared them with family members who at the reception would place advance orders of the without seeing the finished product.

I learned that the earlier you make the sale the large the sales will be.

Getting back to the x100 topic, I am not sure I would use a X100 for anything else than candids at weddings or for street photography. For the street I would avoid using flash, it never looked good to me and I rarely saw any good street photography that used a flash. I guess there are exceptions to that rule as well.

d2f
 
Fuji is pushing the X100 as professional grade, and at first glance - that claim seems somewhat suspect by the fixed focal length of the lens
I know a number of real pros and all of them have at least one (most more) prime > lens that cost more than this camera alone. Fixed focal length and "professionalism"
aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course not. But there are very few working professionals who use a prime as their primary lens, for good reasons. In fact, there are very few fixed lens modern cameras available that use a prime, also for good reasons.

It isnt to say this is a bad thing, for you can optimize the lens for the camera. Fuji goes to great lengths to ascribe why they decided to do a fixed focal length for the lens.

Still, that limits the flexibility of the camera - unless you want the great looks you can get from fast primes. Which is not a bad thing, but it may limit the usefulness of the camera.

And again, for any camera a pro spends money for - its an investment, no matter how much the thing actually costs.
 
I can see you've 'been there - done that' when it comes to weddings. I shot some with film but more with digital (late starter) and preferred what you can achieve with digital by far.

The X100 will certainly be a handy unit to have with you for those times when you would otherwise say "I wish I had my ... with me right now" - irrespective of where you will be.

Zoooming
Makes you think all those pros who do weddings must have it wrong then?

"You have your formal shots and your candid ones. It takes a unique style to capture the candid ones. Maybe you should work on that?

It's not the size of the camera - it's how you use it. I can't recall asking any of the wedding guests I shot to pose for a candid shot - with or without flash.

Zoooming "

Interesting point but maybe you are assuming to much.

Back when I did weddings, I used 6x7 and 6x9 for wedding formals with studio strobes (copying my mentor Monte Zucker's style) and 35mm for used only for table shots at receptions and behind the scenes candids by my assistant. Lucky for me at most receptions the guests were under the influence of the wine and beer and did not care about the photographer using a flash or not. I also learned not to photograph people when they are eating.

But for those special emotional scenes the slapping a SLR mirror was too much a distraction and often flash was not allowed like during the ceremony I used the M6. M6 came in handy for those times when you wanted to be invisible, when the shots were not posed when the tears on the bride's father face were real. I would never pose my subjects, only change the window lighting source.

For the ceremony, I would use my 6x7s on remote control far enough away from the action not to be a distraction while allowing me to be in two places at one time. This allowed the ceremony to go uninterrupted and I did not have to run around to get the shot the bride and groom's parents wanted.

These days I see pros using full frame DSLRs and 80-200 2.8 L and 85 1.2 L lenses and getting that right shot, but every one of them seems posed and a little unnatural, even the candids appeared arranged. Something about doing that loses the emotional impact to me. The wedding days becomes a production where the bride and groom are merely actors, in effect losing the true wedding day experience to the wedding photographer direction.

Instead my posed shots occurred elsewhere. Before the wedding I used to shoot the dress rehearsal and get to know the family and friends over dinner. On the wedding day, I used to get the even better images by having the bride and groom return to the church after the guests had left for the reception. This would allow me to photograph them while they were relaxed and I could get up close and get the images that were impossible during the ceremony. At the time, I assumed every wedding photographer did that as well.

After which we would go to the beach (yes living in LA has its good points) and get some great shots something like those David Ziser would create with a remote flash, then off to the reception. I learned to take shots that couple wanted and a few for myself, the artistic images. Often they brought the artistic images.

Under lessons learned, I learned to have my parking spot reserved so I could be close to the entrance when coming in late. I would give the reception location manager a series of 8x10s of the food setup so they could show customers their layout. And they would hand out my card to them as well.

After the beach, I would arrive ahead of the bride and groom. I did this by giving the limo driver a 8x10 of him and the wedding couple in front of his limo in trade for the favor. This would help him sell his services and he would hand out my card as well. After getting tot he reception location, I when would capture the bride and groom arriving at the reception. Personally, I never found the candids to sell well, and mostly it was filler material for the albums to make a 3rd album.

It seems that the parents did all the buying and maybe the grandparents also. They were into the formal portraits and wall size prints and that it why I used 6x7 for small groups and the 6x9 for the group shot entire wedding party and guests. I used to take a lot of Polaroids and give them to the parents and bride and groom as tokens. They often shared them with family members who at the reception would place advance orders of the without seeing the finished product.

I learned that the earlier you make the sale the large the sales will be.

Getting back to the x100 topic, I am not sure I would use a X100 for anything else than candids at weddings or for street photography. For the street I would avoid using flash, it never looked good to me and I rarely saw any good street photography that used a flash. I guess there are exceptions to that rule as well.

d2f
 
There's certainly nothing wrong with prime lenses but from the wedding photographers I know those that shoot digital now prefer zooms for their sheer flexibility. Most of their primes are used for the more formal shots.

I'd be willing to bet that should the next Fuji X... model appear with a zoom it will be even more popular.

There are a lot of shooters out there who are happy to just get shots with above average IQ as opposed to the 'pixel peepers' who view life enlarged on their screens and criticise pics that have some softness in the corners etc.. etc..

Zoooming

Shooters
Fuji is pushing the X100 as professional grade, and at first glance - that claim seems somewhat suspect by the fixed focal length of the lens
I know a number of real pros and all of them have at least one (most more) prime lens that cost more than this camera alone. Fixed focal length and "professionalism" aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Not every "pro" shoots weddings! I shot a gig on Saturday night solely with a 24mm lens (on a D300), as usual it was perfect. But then again i was shooting behind the scenes stuff, not the bands in action.

The 35mm equivalent is what I've used for most of the last 12-months. If I had a different style I'd use a different focal length. I'm really interested in the X100 for a low light documentary camera.

A small camera, spare battery, notebook (paper; not computer!), a few memory cards, and a small Zoom sound recorder; and I'm good to go... Nice and light, and does everything i want.... :-) Cheers
 
It's just a case of horses for courses. What suits me may not suit another and vice versa. Often it seems these discussions turn into a "It doesn't suit me, so won't suit anybody" roundabout. Viva la difference; I say!
 
Not sure if you were referring to my comments but I used weddings as an example where if you were shooting candids then zooms would be useful/possibly preferred.

Where 'pro' photographers shoot product or studio work then primes come to the fore.

Either way I can see the X100 being a useful and popular tool for those who know where it's features/specs can be utilised best.

Zoooming
Not every "pro" shoots weddings! I shot a gig on Saturday night solely with a 24mm lens (on a D300), as usual it was perfect. But then again i was shooting behind the scenes stuff, not the bands in action.

The 35mm equivalent is what I've used for most of the last 12-months. If I had a different style I'd use a different focal length. I'm really interested in the X100 for a low light documentary camera.

A small camera, spare battery, notebook (paper; not computer!), a few memory cards, and a small Zoom sound recorder; and I'm good to go... Nice and light, and does everything i want.... :-) Cheers
 
Fuji is pushing the X100 as professional grade, and at first glance - that claim seems somewhat suspect by the fixed focal length of the lens
I know a number of real pros and all of them have at least one (most more) prime > lens that cost more than this camera alone. Fixed focal length and "professionalism"
aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course not. But there are very few working professionals who use a prime as their primary lens, for good reasons.
Again, incorrect. I know a number of portrait / wildlife photographers who do use primes (granted, they're telephoto primes but primes nevertheless).

IF you meant x100 wont be used by most photographers to make money, I agree. But you implied that someone fixed focal lens was anti-professional. That's incorrect. One has nothing to do with another. War photographers don't carry a bag full of SLR lenses as they navigate around shootings in Taliban land.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top