Older X-T10 or a newer X-T100? Help decide please

Threaded wrote:

NextShowForSure wrote:

Threaded wrote:

If it has to be between these two, I would go with the XT100 because the XT10 has some issues, as an older camera its AF will be slower, and it suffers from a common problem with X-Trans II cameras of having over aggressive JPEG noise reduction on skintones at ISOs over 1600, and you did say JPEGs were important to you. The play button fault is also well known.

That said, personally I don't like the XT100 either - I'd save and look elsewhere in the current range. XT20s will be getting more affordable now. The XT100 although "newer" was built down to a price and has a sub-par processor inside, and while there are those (here) that like to vehemently disagree whenever this is mentioned, the overwhelming view of reviewers is that it doesn't perform well. They might all be wrong of course, but they probably aren't.

The X-T100 is not the fastest thing on earth but the reviewers are constantly dropping down from high end kit and are always going to find a camera like the X-T100 frustrating which is priced down on reduced processing clout with no compromise on image quality.

In the current trend a processor that was fine 2 years ago will be sub-par now so you can chase the curve but will never catch up with it as in 2 years time it is all sub par again.

I had an X-T10 and certainly would not swap my X-T100 for one. I also have a X-A3 which works OK and considering some reviews think the improved X-A5 is almost unusable I take these reviews with a pinch of salt. Not having to buy the camera themselves takes a big lump out of the equation. Nikon Zee not Zed mirrorless at £2,000 enrty level. No problem.

The X-T100 was not built down to a price but built at a price. It works fine for what it is but the modern constant kit comparison fever always muddies the water on the particular merits of any kit in its own right. A lower cost camera being 'crippled' is also a popular term in the assessment of affordable stuff.

I understand what you're saying but the processor in the XT100/XA series isn't just a chip from the last generation, in truth we don't know what it is at all (it has no name and apparently hasn't featured in any other Fuji) - the only thing we do know is that it's slower than anything else Fuji produce and given the price point it's a safe assumption that its part of the cost savings they made on this model.

If you look at video quality of the XT100 (I'll avoid harping on about the 4K being "crippled") even the 1080 is decidedly poor, and that's a good indication that the processor isn't really up to the job. I'd argue Fuji's have had pretty good autofocus and very good video since the generation started with the X-Pro2 - and that was more than three years ago now - so the XT100 is stepping back quite a way. Genuinely I think Fuji pinched a few too many pennies in its design.

I think that the X-T100 is a quirky in that it really doesn't fit neatly into the jack of all trades type camera that we have gotten used to. It's not a camera that I would recommend if some want a camera for action or video. But if the bulk of your photography consists of  deliberately composed shots, then it might be an excellent choice.

It's not a camera that does well in a spec sheet competition, and I'm not even sure I like the handling that much, I find my X-E3 much easier to shoot with, but  the weird thing is that the X-T100 is the camera that I'll pick up first, once you get the infection there's no cure.

One other thing about the X-T100, in real life it looks just awesome. I've lost count of all the cameras I've purchased, and I always buy without touching or seeing, the  X-T100 was the first camera where I had a OMG, this thing is beautiful moment during the unboxing.