Starter level camera with very confusing usability

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

zafarella wrote:

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

TBH, if you want this to be of any value to others here, then I’d gently suggest that you augment this with some a little more detailed than “not bad.” Some examples of what you found confusing and perhaps thoughts on how it could be improved might be very helpful to someone considering a purchase.

I don't have that camera, but starter level cameras are not difficult to use, so I'm wondering what is confusing about it.

zafarella wrote:

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

Cameras with physical dials and touchscreen tend to be confusing.  EVF + normal screen dito. Too much choice. I found the XA5 better designed.

I've fallen into this trap in the past.  You add something to your gear list and the forum software tempts you to say something about it when you were not expecting to be asked.  So I typed a few words and hit send and got several members saying they didn't think much of my review - rightly.

Welcome to the small group of X-T100 owners who post in this DPR forum!

I've had mine more than a year, and still enjoy it in spite of recent purchase of X-T3.

With careful use you can get excellent 24"x36" prints.

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Also, small size and low price means it is easy (worry free) to take places where a more expensive setup might be risky. Battery life is excellent, and operation is pretty quick without too many glitches.

Be sure to upgrade camera firmware to the latest, if you haven't already.

Link is here:

https://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/fw_table.html

Latest version is v2.00.

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case.  I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results.  Both sensors are X-Trans based.  Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Smallpox wrote:

zafarella wrote:

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

Cameras with physical dials and touchscreen tend to be confusing. EVF + normal screen dito. Too much choice. I found the XA5 better designed.

Could also be that the OP (hello, where are you?) is confused by the confusing button layout of the XT100. For example review on top plate left etc... The XA5 has the standard button layout. Don't know what they were thinking at Fuji by randomly throwing around buttons?

Jerry-astro wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case. I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results. Both sensors are X-Trans based. Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Well, no response, so I’ll just categorically state my opinion that X-Trans is perfectly fine for astro work, having done plenty of my own over the years.  I think I’d want to see some supporting data or expert input before giving any credibility to this particular opinion.  BTW, I’m not here to defend X-Trans... some of its issues are well documented in this forum and elsewhere.  However, IMHO, this doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Jerry-astro wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case. I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results. Both sensors are X-Trans based. Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Well, no response, so I’ll just categorically state my opinion that X-Trans is perfectly fine for astro work, having done plenty of my own over the years. I think I’d want to see some supporting data or expert input before giving any credibility to this particular opinion. BTW, I’m not here to defend X-Trans... some of its issues are well documented in this forum and elsewhere. However, IMHO, this doesn’t happen to be one of them.

I believe that Kiwi2's astro work using his X-T2 from his home in New Zealand (some even with the X-T100 that he also has) is beyond stellar (pun intended). I even went out last night to try and get some longer exposure star/night sky images with my X-T2 and 16-55 and found my X-Trans body up to the task. Nothing I would want to post as I am just now starting out with this type of imagery - in anticipation of a trip next year.

Jerry-astro wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case. I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results. Both sensors are X-Trans based. Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Sorry for the delay answering. I don't use a smartphone so I usually check the DPR forum only every other day.

There was a thread about this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62986190

Gist of it seems that xtrans in-camera raw processor does some raw filtering on long exposures and the X-T100 does not.

This reduces the number of stars seen in images.

Here is a quote from the post linked above:

"Yes, the spatial filtering or slight smoothing is applied to RAW data in the camera and can not be prevented in exposures over 5 sec in the XT3 & 2 & probably all X-trans. It mainly impacts the smallest & dimmest stars in an image. The bright core of dim stars gets smoothed out so close dim star fields become muddy."

Tom Schum wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case. I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results. Both sensors are X-Trans based. Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Sorry for the delay answering. I don't use a smartphone so I usually check the DPR forum only every other day.

There was a thread about this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62986190

Gist of it seems that xtrans in-camera raw processor does some raw filtering on long exposures and the X-T100 does not.

This reduces the number of stars seen in images.

Here is a quote from the post linked above:

"Yes, the spatial filtering or slight smoothing is applied to RAW data in the camera and can not be prevented in exposures over 5 sec in the XT3 & 2 & probably all X-trans. It mainly impacts the smallest & dimmest stars in an image. The bright core of dim stars gets smoothed out so close dim star fields become muddy."

Interesting... I do a fair amount of astro work and have done so for years.  I've never noticed any discernible impact or difference between X-Trans and other sensors (notably Canon) with respect to this particular issue.  I'm going to guess that it's extremely subtle and I'd honestly have to question whether the degree of impact would be even discernible in many cases or at least sufficient to drive a different choice in cameras.  And, BTW, virtually all astro shots that I take are well over 5s... usually closer to 25s if we're talking about wide field images.

Jerry-astro wrote:

zafarella wrote:

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

TBH, if you want this to be of any value to others here, then I’d gently suggest that you augment this with some a little more detailed than “not bad.” Some examples of what you found confusing and perhaps thoughts on how it could be improved might be very helpful to someone considering a purchase.

Pleased that many people actually care about the review, it's my bad agree - did not wrote anything useful. Also wasn't familiar with the forum structure. So to fix the above and give my subjective opinion:

Cons I have found:

• Autofocus sucks - you cannot focus on what you want, still mbe due to fact that I have habit using DSLR, anyway usability of auto-focus sucks in this camera.
• Ergonomic of the body sucks too - it's very uncomfortable in hand and you always afraid it will fall
• Design of the button in comparison to Nikon D5200 I had is worst.
• Viewing pictures was very difficult - I could not find simple way of viewing pictures
• Wifi thing with smatrphone app is not that bad - good is that you can control camera remotely and don't need any external device, which requires battery etc.
• Battery life is moderate, could be the way better for mirrorless camera
• the design of the screen and it's rotation is also not ergonomic in comparison same level and price DSLRs where screen rotates and gives better flexibility on shooting pics and videos
• Body could be made more ergonomic with no sharp edges
• Software should be redesigned from bottom to up - it is lacking usability

Overall I would say it's good, but as was saying something more like for the beginner. Counting the price I think it fit's bottom of what you paying for.

The good about camera is that it have very good auto mode and light amount very well tuned in the pictures. Lenses I used also not the worst, but camera itself isn't good I would say overall. Night shooting is also not the best for the lenses I used.

My impression is that they are on the right way to do the camera, but it is in the middle of development.

Hope that is helpful and sorry for making useless response before.

zafarella wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

zafarella wrote:

Nothing special about this camera, it us not that bad, but just another evolution step in camera development

TBH, if you want this to be of any value to others here, then I’d gently suggest that you augment this with some a little more detailed than “not bad.” Some examples of what you found confusing and perhaps thoughts on how it could be improved might be very helpful to someone considering a purchase.

Pleased that many people actually care about the review, it's my bad agree - did not wrote anything useful. Also wasn't familiar with the forum structure. So to fix the above and give my subjective opinion:

Cons I have found:

• Autofocus sucks - you cannot focus on what you want, still mbe due to fact that I have habit using DSLR, anyway usability of auto-focus sucks in this camera.
• Ergonomic of the body sucks too - it's very uncomfortable in hand and you always afraid it will fall
• Design of the button in comparison to Nikon D5200 I had is worst.
• Viewing pictures was very difficult - I could not find simple way of viewing pictures
• Wifi thing with smatrphone app is not that bad - good is that you can control camera remotely and don't need any external device, which requires battery etc.
• Battery life is moderate, could be the way better for mirrorless camera
• the design of the screen and it's rotation is also not ergonomic in comparison same level and price DSLRs where screen rotates and gives better flexibility on shooting pics and videos
• Body could be made more ergonomic with no sharp edges
• Software should be redesigned from bottom to up - it is lacking usability

Overall I would say it's good, but as was saying something more like for the beginner. Counting the price I think it fit's bottom of what you paying for.

The good about camera is that it have very good auto mode and light amount very well tuned in the pictures. Lenses I used also not the worst, but camera itself isn't good I would say overall. Night shooting is also not the best for the lenses I used.

My impression is that they are on the right way to do the camera, but it is in the middle of development.

Hope that is helpful and sorry for making useless response before.

Makes complete sense. For me potentially the best camera available (bang for buck) but some strange design decisions. For me the XA5 is better, smaller, lighter, + ergonomics.