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

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.

Sal Baker 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.

I doubt anyone is vehement, but it's been mentioned that the initial reviews were before the FW update. My only point of comparison is with my X-E2. With current FW and performance mode the X-T100 is a decisive upgrade in every way, and the IQ from the Bayer CFA is at the top of Fuji's offerings. If someone finds the X-E2 (with updated FW) to be unusable for photography then they would be better off with Fuji's more pricey models.

Sal

I had an X-E2 (both before and after the later FW) and it was a good camera in its day, but like any mirrorless camera at that time it was compromised and involved trade-offs particularly on the AF side of things. These cameras have evolved at a rapid pace since (and continue to improve) and while that doesn't make cameras like the X-E2 or XT100 unusable, it does make them less attractive and less capable than other options. For the relatively small step up in price to a more current model (especially if you buy used), you're getting a lot more camera IMHO.

At the end of the day all these cameras are computers, and dependent on computing power to do what they do, and like the early days of computing things are improving quickly.  What was a great home computer in the early eighties was laughable a few years later and a museum piece a few years after that - so it is with mirrorless at the moment.

I've had the XT10 for the last three years and have never been happier with a Fuji camera, except perhaps the X10 which I started with, then XA1, and then XT10. I have IMO the best Fuji lenses in the 35/1.4 and 60, along with kit lenses 16-50 and 50-230., so that really helps. Last summer I got a XT100 and just couldn't get used to it, but looking back at my output, I did get some wonderful photos from the XT100, tho I missed a lot of shots which I probably wouldn't have with my trusty XT10. It has some great features but had problems, particularly with the MF focus peaking, which the XT10 seems to me much better, maybe because I've been using it for 3 years. For me the XT10 is much more comfortable to use in the same way the original X10 was. Maybe it was because I am an old codger that I couldn't get used to the XT100, but that is my opinion.

That said, I am looking for an upgrade and think rather than the XT100, I should have waited for the XT30, which will definitely be my next purchase.

MichalM wrote:

Hello, after a long hesitation, I decided to write and ask for advice.

I would like to know your opinions whether to buy an older X-T10 with a classic 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens or a newer X-T100 with XC 15-45 and what will be the difference in quality. I'm not a novice, I sold old photo equipment, but I'm planning a trip around Europe and looking for something to go.

I am especially interested in image quality in jpeg output. I don't want to edit the raw format anymore - it takes time and disk space. I would rather use the kit lens for such a normal photo shoot. I'd like to take Samyang 12mm F2 and also use some older M42 optics. I wonder your opinion about the image output with them. Is there a noticeable difference in old and new sensors? Which one is "more tolerant" to these optics? I also don't and I won't buy a modern computer. My Intel® HD 4000 and i5 core is enough, but I don't think there's going to be a big difference in processing 24mp or 16mp?

In the past, I took photos of documentary, street and reportage. I have never used continual focus, even though I am shooting action shots. I'm shooting with one center af point and I'm not interested in the video. I've always done with an average camera. Olympus 410 with pancake 25mm, Sigma SD15 with Sigma 18-125, some nikons, canons and pentax ... I stayed at home with only fujifilm x10. I think I will use the camera overall to take pictures of static objects. Mainly landscapes and architecture. I don't want to invest much in the camera, I'd rather buy another lens. Your opinion? X-T10 vs X-T100? Does the older M42 with 24mp sensor make sense? Opinion on Samyang with him?

Thank you, Michal

Anything with the 24 MP censor. Resolution is not the key reason for this. The reason is greatly improved dynamic range. The X-100 will also produce better jpegs without the "waxy skin" effect. It was a big problem with the T1 and I believe that the T10 is allso affected.

I am using the T20 and just like you I don't use continuouse focus and I get exelent results in terms of getting things in focus even if I am dealing with dynamic subjects.

NextShowForSure wrote:

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. 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 get my money's worth out of the X-T100 and am not seeing any image improvement in the X-T30. We are talking £549 with the 15-45 for the X-T100 against £899 for the X-T30 so this is hardly penny pinching.

But there you're really talking about at least a two generation jump in overall performance - the XT20 is a fairer comparison and a lot closer on price.

The deep cut in price has to come from somewhere and the 4K focus stacking is all I really need in 4K so handy it is there. The X-T20 being dumped at present is a good prospect but that may not last. If the chip has no name that is sad but I will live with that.

The OP is buying right now and there are bargains to be had on the XT20 right now, not to mention other models on the used market.

The X-Pro2 is a £1,200 body only camera even now so can Fuji really churn this level of technology out at half the cost in the affordable stuff in only 2 years time?

The X-Pro2 is still expensive because it's niche, and better built, and has the OVF etc. The core technology from the XP2 (same sensor and processor, and at the time better video and autofocus!) went into the XT20 one year later at a more affordable price point, and that's gotten a lot more affordable since.

Moore's law is well and truly dead in technology and with the high end stuff in electronics cost is not being absorbed over a short time in the way it was 10 years ago. Also Fuji is a pretty low volume seller against the competition so this makes it even more difficult for them recouping development costs.

Fuji have two main tactics to recoup those costs - firstly they use the exact same sensor and processor across multiple camera lines (eg X-Pro2, XT2, XT20, XE3, X100F, XH1 all exactly the same camera under the skin - even the two GFX medium format bodies use the same processor) and secondly they elongate the competitiveness of older hardware through firmware. The X-Pro2 from early 2016 would look dated now, but a 2019 X-Pro2 has added 4K video, flicker reduction, some big improvements to autofocus, and a stack of other added features to keep it current - and the R&D for those improvements all came from the development of other models from the same shared hardware.

The XT100 is out of step with all of this due to the steeper cost cutting approach Fuji took and the fact that it doesn't really share anything with anything other than the even lowlier XA models. It's a cul de sac. I guess it's "priced to sell" as they say, but has it?

rainydiary wrote:

I would recommend X-T100 because X-T10 has issue with the play button.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3989209

Yep! My XT-10 developed the play button problem and the grip material falling off problem. Most recently my XPro2’s eye piece is coming off. I do hope Fuji is improving quality control. I like the system especially the glass and intend to stay with it, but only if the quality control experience improves.

NextShowForSure wrote:

Threaded wrote:

The XT100 is out of step with all of this due to the steeper cost cutting approach Fuji took and the fact that it doesn't really share anything with anything other than the even lowlier XA models. It's a cul de sac. I guess it's "priced to sell" as they say, but has it?

Your terminology points to a hierarchical view of kit -"even lowlier",

And? There is a clear hierarchy in the line up. I'm not judging any of this on any basis other than features and performance and general suitability for a given job. The XA series is "lowlier" because it's the lesser form of the XT100, in essence the same camera but less a significant feature, in the form of a viewfinder. Is it wrong to say that? Am I hurting someone's feelings? How?

This whole tier of cameras sits below the rest of the range not just on price but also performance and build quality.  The IQ may be the same, you may even argue it’s better (that’s a subjective assessment and you’re welcome to it) but objectively there’s more chance of the XT100 not focussing in time, more chance of its burst speed or duration not being sufficient, more chance of it failing in wet/cold/dusty conditions than one of the higher end cameras, these are just facts and they make it the lesser camera.

the importance of your processor having a name,

That's your absurd spin on it. All I was pointing out was that the processor in the XT100 was not simply, as you implied, from a previous generation but actually a "new" processor that isn't identified at all and can't be compared directly with any previous generation. Fuji have named all their previous generations of X series chips, so if it was one of them we'd know about it.

sub-par processor.

Everything points to the processor in the XT100 being slower and less capable than other Fujis and other comparable cameras. That makes it sub par. Many reviewers agree with that summation. Again, apologies if this language offends you.

Of course the cheaper camera is going to show cost cutting and can never share facilities with the more expensive stuff.

Low end users always tend to be driven off forums; look for an HX posting on the cybershot forum and it would not surprise if there are a lot more of these around than RX cameras and they are definitely not completely gone as the forum chat would imply. Look at the average price of compacts on CIPA even allowing that these are pricing at shipping. The fact that there is less posting by X-T100 or X-A users on a forum such as this covering such a wide range of kit is absolutely no indication of sales or popularity at all.

I just asked the question, and not because of any perception of unpopularity here (which I would expect, this is a gear head forum and the XT100 is a self proclaimed entry level model), but more about the critical response and the price cuts since launch. I could forgive everything about the camera if it was flying off the shelves to its intended market, but I've not seen any particular sign of that.

Here's one point of reference, Amazon's best seller list - https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011/ref=zg_bs_pg_2?_encoding=UTF8&pg=2

Several Fuji models on the list, including the XT20. Several of the more affordable models from Sony, Panasonic etc. XT100 doesn't feature, at all. Is it a big seller for Fuji? Does everyone buy it somewhere else? Maybe? Who knows.

Threaded wrote:

Sal Baker 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.

I doubt anyone is vehement, but it's been mentioned that the initial reviews were before the FW update. My only point of comparison is with my X-E2. With current FW and performance mode the X-T100 is a decisive upgrade in every way, and the IQ from the Bayer CFA is at the top of Fuji's offerings. If someone finds the X-E2 (with updated FW) to be unusable for photography then they would be better off with Fuji's more pricey models.

Sal

I had an X-E2 (both before and after the later FW) and it was a good camera in its day, but like any mirrorless camera at that time it was compromised and involved trade-offs particularly on the AF side of things. These cameras have evolved at a rapid pace since (and continue to improve) and while that doesn't make cameras like the X-E2 or XT100 unusable, it does make them less attractive and less capable than other options. For the relatively small step up in price to a more current model (especially if you buy used), you're getting a lot more camera IMHO.

At the end of the day all these cameras are computers, and dependent on computing power to do what they do, and like the early days of computing things are improving quickly. What was a great home computer in the early eighties was laughable a few years later and a museum piece a few years after that - so it is with mirrorless at the moment.

That small step up could easily equate to an additional lens.  And other than bragging rights, I don’t see a reason to buy anything more than I need.  My top priority these days is excellent IQ.

Sal

Threaded wrote:

Sal Baker 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.

I doubt anyone is vehement, but it's been mentioned that the initial reviews were before the FW update. My only point of comparison is with my X-E2. With current FW and performance mode the X-T100 is a decisive upgrade in every way, and the IQ from the Bayer CFA is at the top of Fuji's offerings. If someone finds the X-E2 (with updated FW) to be unusable for photography then they would be better off with Fuji's more pricey models.

Sal

I had an X-E2 (both before and after the later FW) and it was a good camera in its day, but like any mirrorless camera at that time it was compromised and involved trade-offs particularly on the AF side of things. These cameras have evolved at a rapid pace since (and continue to improve) and while that doesn't make cameras like the X-E2 or XT100 unusable, it does make them less attractive and less capable than other options. For the relatively small step up in price to a more current model (especially if you buy used), you're getting a lot more camera IMHO.

I don’t see anything in Fuji’s APSC lineup that is better (or even as good) than the X-T100 for landscape shooting, it’s a gem.  And for $499 it’s an insane bargain IMO.

Sal

At the end of the day all these cameras are computers, and dependent on computing power to do what they do, and like the early days of computing things are improving quickly. What was a great home computer in the early eighties was laughable a few years later and a museum piece a few years after that - so it is with mirrorless at the moment.

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.

X-T100 has some weird behavior. When data is being written to the SD card, many functionalities are crippled. Don't know why since it looks stupid.

When camera is writing to SD card:
- It's not possible to change the focusing point (meaning you are stuck with the same focusing point until buffer is emptied. You can shoot photos, but then you can't change the focusing point even longer)
- If you were using viewfinder, you can't review photos on the LCS screen (playback is stuck to viewfinder until entire buffer is written to the SD card. Note - it works in the viewfinder, camera is just crippled to switch the view to LCD)
- It's not possible to use MF assist magnifier view in viewfinder (on LCD it works).
- Q (quick menu) doesn't open
- white balance can't be set
- menu can't be open
- self timer can't be selected
- shooting mode can't be changed

This list is IMO ridiculous. Even more because some other even advanced stuff does work. Like changing display mode including showing live histogram, changing ISO and exposure compensation, eye sensor switch from LCD to viewfinder, touchscreen commands to change AF modes etc. I really hope these are bugs that will be resolved with FW upgrades.

Metering is also very funny sometimes - I don't get it. There are other bugs - like Aperture priority mode sometimes doesn't allow setting aperture above F/2 (since camera determines the image will be overexposed, however, in reality it's not).

Paired with 35 F/1.4 (yes, I know, one of the slowest AF lenses on a slow body) one needs to be creative and patient using X-T100 to shoot kids or events. However, photos that are nailed are great.

I'm trying hard to love my X-T100. And I often do. But sometimes I wish I could upgrade to another Fuji body with Bayer array...