Reading mode: Light Dark

X100F vs X-T20 as second body (own X-T2)

Go to last post
C

Cameron Swinton

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
285
Reaction score
22
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, US
I'm looking for a second, more compact body to add to my (already small) X-T2. Initially I was planning on the X-T20 as a second body to minimize the need to change lenses as much when shooting - perhaps put a prime lens I expect to use a lot for the day on the second body and leave it. However, I'm now considering the X100F for the same reason but also due to the extra portability. While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2), I'm wondering if the portability would add more overall functionality than the freedom to change lenses on the second body.

I realize the right answer to this question may vary for each person... I'm just looking for opinions and would like to hear from others who have contemplated the X100 series as a second body vs another interchangeable-lens body.

Thoughts?
 
'While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2),'

The X100F of course has a 23mm lens....quite different from 35mm.

But if you are happy with a lens of that focal length [and let's face it a zillion people are] I'd go for the 100F for the form and fun factors.

https://500px.com/transact3133
 
Last edited:
Vermont3133 said:
'While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2),'

The X100F of course has a 23mm lens....quite different from 35mm.

But if you are happy with a lens of that focal length [and let's face it a zillion people are] I'd go for the 100F for the form and fun factors.

https://500px.com/transact3133
Click to expand...
Late night typo - I mean 23mm on both counts - just migrated from a FF setup...

Thanks for the input!
 
On a recent trip, I took an X-T10 as a backup body to the X-T2. I also have an original X100 and I've never felt that was a suitable backup camera when I have other X- bodies.

I like my X100 and don't plan to get rid of it. But it serves a niche. If you have the budget for *only* one of the X-T20 or an X100F to complement your X-T2, I would suggest the X-T20.

Additional comment: I also have an X-Pro2 and one might think that it might have been a better backup body to bring with me. I brought the X-T10 because it has a similar form factor and button layout to the X-T2. My brain is no longer that nimble and in the hustle of vacation photography, I didn't want to "change modes" if I switched bodies (i.e. rangefinder to pseudo-DSLR, different button and knob layouts, etc.).
 
canonbcguy said:
On a recent trip, I took an X-T10 as a backup body to the X-T2. I also have an original X100 and I've never felt that was a suitable backup camera when I have other X- bodies.

I like my X100 and don't plan to get rid of it. But it serves a niche. If you have the budget for *only* one of the X-T20 or an X100F to complement your X-T2, I would suggest the X-T20.

Additional comment: I also have an X-Pro2 and one might think that it might have been a better backup body to bring with me. I brought the X-T10 because it has a similar form factor and button layout to the X-T2. My brain is no longer that nimble and in the hustle of vacation photography, I didn't want to "change modes" if I switched bodies (i.e. rangefinder to pseudo-DSLR, different button and knob layouts, etc.).
Click to expand...
I COULD buy both and have 3 bodies (X-T2, X-T20, X100F) but I'm certain one of them would rarely get used and I'd like to feel like I'm getting some use out of whichever I buy.

The X-T20 really seems like the practical choice, while the X100F seems like the more fun but less responsible choice. ;)

The control layouts are probably similar enough between the X-T20 and X100F that it's not a huge deal. With the new X100F it also uses the same batteries, so that's not a differentiating factor anymore either.
 
Cameron Swinton said:
I'm looking for a second, more compact body to add to my (already small) X-T2. Initially I was planning on the X-T20 as a second body to minimize the need to change lenses as much when shooting - perhaps put a prime lens I expect to use a lot for the day on the second body and leave it. However, I'm now considering the X100F for the same reason but also due to the extra portability. While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2), I'm wondering if the portability would add more overall functionality than the freedom to change lenses on the second body.

I realize the right answer to this question may vary for each person... I'm just looking for opinions and would like to hear from others who have contemplated the X100 series as a second body vs another interchangeable-lens body.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I have all three right now, though I suspect I'll be back to the X-T2 alone as my XF host quite soon.

The X100F is soft AF and slow as molasses compared against it's contemporaries (Richard Butler is being a tad optimistic in mentioning the increased speed as an actual plus point) as with every X100 before it, and I would argue it's not truly meaningfully smaller than the X-T20 + 23/2 attached.

I mean, many people say you can stick an X100 in a jacket pocket and sure you can, but it doesn't go into any of my jackets without completely ruining the lines, and I'd say if you're sartorially challenged enough to put an X100 in a pocket, you're probably rocking some sort of fisherman's coat that will likely also accommodate an X-T with a pancake or even the 23/2.

For fixed lens I would look at something like an RX1/R which will take massively better pictures than the gimmick-laden wannabe Leica while occupying about the same sort of volume.

As a lens park however, the X-T20 wouldn't be a terrible choice.
 
TheClueless said:
I have all three right now, though I suspect I'll be back to the X-T2 alone as my XF host quite soon.

The X100F is soft AF and slow as molasses compared against it's contemporaries (Richard Butler is being a tad optimistic in mentioning the increased speed as an actual plus point) as with every X100 before it, and I would argue it's not truly meaningfully smaller than the X-T20 + 23/2 attached.

I mean, many people say you can stick an X100 in a jacket pocket and sure you can, but it doesn't go into any of my jackets without completely ruining the lines, and I'd say if you're sartorially challenged enough to put an X100 in a pocket, you're probably rocking some sort of fisherman's coat that will likely also accommodate an X-T with a pancake or even the 23/2.

For fixed lens I would look at something like an RX1/R which will take massively better pictures than the gimmick-laden wannabe Leica while occupying about the same sort of volume.

As a lens park however, the X-T20 wouldn't be a terrible choice.
Click to expand...
Great feedback - I was hoping to hear from people who had first-hand experience with several of them. I think the performance differences in focus speed and such might annoy me. I do often shoot photos of my (active) kids and the X-T2 keeps up beautifully. From what you've said, and what others have mentioned, the X100 series may lag a bit for that sort of shooting.

I get what you mean about the practical portability differences. My RX100 is probably a better truly pocketable option, albeit with less quality.

For a second shooting body I'm guessing you'd prefer a second X-T2? When considering the X-T20, is the size difference large enough to make that a meaningful difference? My hesitation is lack of continuity between the bodies and controls. I want a second body to be helpful and not confuse things. That said, if I can do that in an even more portable form factor (my reason for considering the X-T20 vs another X-T2) I'd like that.
 
Last edited:
Cameron Swinton said:
TheClueless said:
I have all three right now, though I suspect I'll be back to the X-T2 alone as my XF host quite soon.

The X100F is soft AF and slow as molasses compared against it's contemporaries (Richard Butler is being a tad optimistic in mentioning the increased speed as an actual plus point) as with every X100 before it, and I would argue it's not truly meaningfully smaller than the X-T20 + 23/2 attached.

I mean, many people say you can stick an X100 in a jacket pocket and sure you can, but it doesn't go into any of my jackets without completely ruining the lines, and I'd say if you're sartorially challenged enough to put an X100 in a pocket, you're probably rocking some sort of fisherman's coat that will likely also accommodate an X-T with a pancake or even the 23/2.

For fixed lens I would look at something like an RX1/R which will take massively better pictures than the gimmick-laden wannabe Leica while occupying about the same sort of volume.

As a lens park however, the X-T20 wouldn't be a terrible choice.
Click to expand...
Great feedback - I was hoping to hear from people who had first-hand experience with several of them. I think the performance differences in focus speed and such might annoy me. I do often shoot photos of my (active) kids and the X-T2 keeps up beautifully. From what you've said, and what others have mentioned, the X100 series may lag a bit for that sort of shooting.

I get what you mean about the practical portability differences. My RX100 is probably a better truly pocketable option, albeit with less quality.

For a second shooting body I'm guessing you'd prefer a second X-T2? When considering the X-T20, is the size difference large enough to make that a meaningful difference? My hesitation is lack of continuity between the bodies and controls. I want a second body to be helpful and not confuse things. That said, if I can do that in an even more portable form factor (my reason for considering the X-T20 vs another X-T2) I'd like that.
Click to expand...
The weight difference between the bodies is fairly minimal when considered as part of the overall lensed-up weight, but you could argue it and the size difference is discernible (especially with a pancake) allowing you to swing things around faster.

On the flipside the relative crampedness is definitely evident, especially if you have large hands - which does affect control accessibility somewhat. Another element is that the X-T20 does have more P&S friendly features on it, so you could use it in a different light / as a hand-off body.

Full disclosure: I'm not much of a Fuji fan - I'm a Leica / Nikon / Panasonic-first shooter - and I especially dislike the X100's as it's a compromised pastiche, but clearly it works as a discount Leica for many, including DPR reviewers who are clearly happy to set objectivity aside for retro looks without the apparently ego-bruising learning curve to master a real rangefnder. I personally find the hybrid VF implementation to be a bad joke.

So given that, I guess the choice is just as much between how you want to shoot, and how you want to be seen to shoot.

If I was shooting professionally I guess I'd stick with 2x X-T2's. Not that I'd recommend anyone shoot professionally with an X-T2.
 
Last edited:
TheClueless said:
The weight difference between the bodies is fairly minimal when considered as part of the overall lensed-up weight, but you could argue it and the size difference is discernible (especially with a pancake) allowing you to swing things around faster.

On the flipside the relative crampedness is definitely evident, especially if you have large hands - which does affect control accessibility somewhat. Another element is that the X-T20 does have more P&S friendly features on it, so you could use it in a different light / as a hand-off body.

Full disclosure: I'm not much of a Fuji fan - I'm a Leica / Nikon / Panasonic-first shooter - and I especially dislike the X100's as it's a compromised pastiche, but clearly it works as a discount Leica for many, including DPR reviewers who are clearly happy to set objectivity aside for retro looks without the apparently ego-bruising learning curve to master a real rangefnder. I personally find the hybrid VF implementation to be a bad joke.

So given that, I guess the choice is just as much between how you want to shoot, and how you want to be seen to shoot.

If I was shooting professionally I guess I'd stick with 2x X-T2's. Not that I'd recommend anyone shoot professionally with an X-T2.
Click to expand...
"compromised pastiche" is quite the description but I can see why you'd say that. ;)

I don't care at all about how I "want to be seen to shoot", especially since I don't do anything professionally anymore - it's just for me. I'll use whatever tools work for me and give me the results I want. Function is more important to me than the form or aesthetics.

X-T2's aren't necessarily geared towards pros, but I have to admit that it's a more capable body in most ways than some of the DSLRs I used professionally in years past. But that's another topic...
 
Cameron Swinton said:
I'm looking for a second, more compact body to add to my (already small) X-T2. Initially I was planning on the X-T20 as a second body to minimize the need to change lenses as much when shooting - perhaps put a prime lens I expect to use a lot for the day on the second body and leave it. However, I'm now considering the X100F for the same reason but also due to the extra portability.
Click to expand...
you can get the same portability with the X-T20 by fixing a pancake lens to the body.
Cameron Swinton said:
While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2), I'm wondering if the portability would add more overall functionality than the freedom to change lenses on the second body.
Click to expand...
I don't think so since the X-T20 is acting double duty, one as a backup camera to your X-T2, and two, as a second platform to hold a lens so you don't have to change them.
Cameron Swinton said:
I realize the right answer to this question may vary for each person... I'm just looking for opinions and would like to hear from others who have contemplated the X100 series as a second body vs another interchangeable-lens body.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I've got all three cameras and I use my X100f as a snaps and grab shot camera. If the iPhone 8's camera is as good as I think it will be, I just might sell the X100f and use the iPhone 8 as my snaps camera. I'm running Lightroom Mobile on my iPhone 6s and iPad Pro through my Adobe CC account, shooting DNGs, and it does a good job of synchronizing between the platforms.
 
Only the 27mm is of similar depth but then you have the EVF hump making jacket fits harder. The 23f2 its too deep to consider it pocketable.

Consoider renting an X100T or F to see if it provides the fun you think it has.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com
 
Last edited:
Er...you're not much of a Fuji fan but you own three of their cameras?

Crikey - how many cameras do you own from manufacturers you do like?

My brother owns a Leica and I can honestly say that I prefer my Fuji:

1) I can slip it in my coat pocket - and no, I'm not a fisherman

2) I have more flexibility (i.e. some flexibility) with jpeg output

3) It's far more discreet and doesn't shout "I have sh*t loads of money and want everyone to know I do"

As far as I'm concerned, all this stuff about the Fuji's soft lens is BS, but then it's true that I have low standards.

Although I'm not a Leica fan, even I appreciate Cartier-Bresson's blurry photos of chaps leaping over puddles.
 
X-T20, no question. It adds so much to your "system". Add a 27mm f2.8 for pocketability. Same cost, much more versatile in the setting of a whole system.
 
SundridgePete said:
Er...you're not much of a Fuji fan but you own three of their cameras?

Crikey - how many cameras do you own from manufacturers you do like?

My brother owns a Leica and I can honestly say that I prefer my Fuji:

1) I can slip it in my coat pocket - and no, I'm not a fisherman

2) I have more flexibility (i.e. some flexibility) with jpeg output

3) It's far more discreet and doesn't shout "I have sh*t loads of money and want everyone to know I do"

As far as I'm concerned, all this stuff about the Fuji's soft lens is BS, but then it's true that I have low standards.

Although I'm not a Leica fan, even I appreciate Cartier-Bresson's blurry photos of chaps leaping over puddles.
Click to expand...
Heh, it's always a friend, brother, etc.

Yeah - I buy a lot of I like, I buy a lot of things I don't like. It's called collecting experience in a hobby. Something that not many can do, not many can relate to, and therefore others will say dumb things like "If you don't like x why buy their stuff"?

See, I prefer to actually be able to articulate why I don't like something and also be able to articulate why others do the same things better, instead of just making stuff up because my ego demands it.

And yes, the X100 lens is very much - as I said - soft AF. You would know this if you had experience and weren't letting your eyes (and we aren't talking about what ends up on the SD card) or self-justification do the talking.
 
Last edited:
Cameron Swinton said:
TheClueless said:
The weight difference between the bodies is fairly minimal when considered as part of the overall lensed-up weight, but you could argue it and the size difference is discernible (especially with a pancake) allowing you to swing things around faster.

On the flipside the relative crampedness is definitely evident, especially if you have large hands - which does affect control accessibility somewhat. Another element is that the X-T20 does have more P&S friendly features on it, so you could use it in a different light / as a hand-off body.

Full disclosure: I'm not much of a Fuji fan - I'm a Leica / Nikon / Panasonic-first shooter - and I especially dislike the X100's as it's a compromised pastiche, but clearly it works as a discount Leica for many, including DPR reviewers who are clearly happy to set objectivity aside for retro looks without the apparently ego-bruising learning curve to master a real rangefnder. I personally find the hybrid VF implementation to be a bad joke.

So given that, I guess the choice is just as much between how you want to shoot, and how you want to be seen to shoot.

If I was shooting professionally I guess I'd stick with 2x X-T2's. Not that I'd recommend anyone shoot professionally with an X-T2.
Click to expand...
"compromised pastiche" is quite the description but I can see why you'd say that. ;)

I don't care at all about how I "want to be seen to shoot", especially since I don't do anything professionally anymore - it's just for me. I'll use whatever tools work for me and give me the results I want. Function is more important to me than the form or aesthetics.

X-T2's aren't necessarily geared towards pros, but I have to admit that it's a more capable body in most ways than some of the DSLRs I used professionally in years past. But that's another topic...
Click to expand...
Yeah - you might be heading towards the 2x X-T2 in that case, but I would still demo both and see how you feel about it - and try to get an RX1/R demo as well.

The X100 will undoubtedly have a great first impression, but again, as I said I think others do the same job a lot better without the same compromises. The RX will probably leave you feeling a lot colder at first, but it is far more likely to grow on you as a useful tool the more you use it. Fixed-lens wise I'm happy with my Q for now especially as I shoot 28mm on my M's often anyway, but if they bring out a non-popup-EVF'd RX1RII and speed things up a bit I will almost certainly take another look.

I personally think at this point the X-T20 is the most "honest" Fuji in terms of what they're trying to do and I'd have to say from what I've shot so far it's my least disliked Fuji as an overall package when consdered within it's price band and intentions. But then again, it lacks features I'd want out of a sole lens host so I doubt I'll be keeping it over the X-T2 (and for me, no need to keep two XF hosts around long-term).
 
Why on earth would I make up what camera my brother owns? Not just clueless, deluded... May I suggest that you go back to your collecting and leave the commentary to those of us that actually take photographs?
 
Last edited:
Cameron Swinton said:
I'm looking for a second, more compact body to add to my (already small) X-T2. Initially I was planning on the X-T20 as a second body to minimize the need to change lenses as much when shooting - perhaps put a prime lens I expect to use a lot for the day on the second body and leave it. However, I'm now considering the X100F for the same reason but also due to the extra portability. While the X100F would limit the second body to 35mm (which I use a lot - already own the 35mm f2), I'm wondering if the portability would add more overall functionality than the freedom to change lenses on the second body.

I realize the right answer to this question may vary for each person... I'm just looking for opinions and would like to hear from others who have contemplated the X100 series as a second body vs another interchangeable-lens body.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Wondering about the same thing. The X100F seems more fun and "different". With the X-T20, it feels like getting another X-T2. What did you decide in the end (if you have decided that is)?
 
I'd wondered about an X100-whatever as a very portable camera until someone on these fora pointed out it was roughly the same size as my X-E2 with the 27mm lens. The X-T20 is a little bigger, but only a little. One of the smaller X-cameras with the excellent 27mm lens is the ticket if you are already a Fuji ILC user.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top