The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Photozopia Senior Member • Posts: 1,302
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...

Brad Davis wrote:

Bingo..."costs around twice as much as a used X100 right now..."

I'm thinking of picking up a used X100 for a four day trek on the Inca Trail and visit to Machu Picchu. Honestly, I'm a bit concerned about the fixed focal length......

Thousands of users over the years used a fixed 35mm (equiv.) lens. It's a good all round length - quickly weans you off multiple zoom use ....

Also looking at the new NEX-6 with the power zoom......really curious about folks thoughts on the X100 for this outing if you'd care to share.

I consider the Nex-6 and X-Trans to be pretty much in the same ballpark - IQ wise - and the 6 was my choice after an unhappy XPro try-out.

Too many people here confusing IQ (a term which incorporates MANY factors) with image 'style' or 'look' ( a somewhat more indefineable quality).

The original X100 image signature has a certain 'look' - wholly different to the X-Trans or Nex-6 output. As someone commented here earlier, the Nex/X-Trans is much like the original Canon 5D output ... very clean, somewhat clinical look - that loses the X100 warmth/tone on occasions.

I've owned the XPro ... still own the Nex/X100/5D ... and compared all.

Original X100 image still has that certain something ... something that can't be defined by quoting DXO figures/results - or in increased resolution results ... which is what most here are claiming, in saying something has a 'better' IQ than something else.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow