For those who don't like the X100's...

...but do like compact cameras and the 35 mm (equivalent) viewpoint:

Then you are probably like me. Because I just didn't get along with the X100T. The OVF's parallax made me miss shots, the body is surprisingly chunky, but the lens too tiny to grab, and that close-up haze was a let-down. I wanted to like the camera, I really did, but it didn't work out between us.

So instead, I went two other ways, and if you're like me, maybe you'll enjoy them as much as I do:

The Ricoh GR III is not a 35 mm equivalent, but it has a crop mode that produces 16 MP 35 mm images that rival anything my X100T could produce. Not in depth of field, of course (cropped, it's equivalent to a 23 f/3.5 APS-C). But the camera is absolutely tiny, fits in pants pockets, has (weak) stabilization, is super fast to turn on and shoot, and can be used one-handed. To be fair, it completely lacks a viewfinder, autofocus is not great, and battery life mediocre. Still, I prefer my GR III over the X100T in every way. Highly recommended!

The Sony RX1 is a 35 mm f/2 full-frame fixed-lens compact camera from 2012. These days, used prices are roughly similar to X100T's or X100F's. Again, no viewfinder and a small battery. But the lens this time is a completely different beast. Physically, because it sticks out, and offers tactile control wheels for aperture and focus that I vastly prefer over the X100's tiny ring things. But optically as well, with a one-stop brighter (equivalent) aperture, and a more classy rendering, to my taste. It is a ten-year-old camera, however. There's no touch screen, autofocus is not particularly fast, and low light performance is no longer ahead of APS-C despite the larger sensor. Still, I find the camera a joy to use, and there is something about the camera and its pictures that inspires me in the way the X100T didn't.

But please don't take this as a diss on the X100 series of cameras. They are wonderful devices that can produce great pictures. They just were not for me.

Maybe you should try an X100V... any lens issues you might have had with your X100T no longer apply.

I don't like cameras w/o viewfinders. The DP Merrill's being the exception because their Fauveon sensors. A usable finder is important to get the job nicely done. The rest are smartphones. For the GRIII, there is only a mediocre filter solution which soon becomes quirky. Would prefer an X100V anytime against GRIII and it is much easier to use than the RX1.

bastibe wrote:

...but do like compact cameras and the 35 mm (equivalent) viewpoint:

Then you are probably like me. Because I just didn't get along with the X100T. The OVF's parallax made me miss shots, the body is surprisingly chunky, but the lens too tiny to grab, and that close-up haze was a let-down. I wanted to like the camera, I really did, but it didn't work out between us.

Hi, I do like a slightly wide, general purpose lens. I recently tried the X100V for several days using Fuji UK's loan service (which is an excellent, easy service). I was comparing it against a XE4/27 MK II. While I liked the X100V, I decided that the XE4 was my preferred camera for four reasons. First, I did not like the OVF having become accustomed to the WYSIWYG of the EVF, so if I was seldom if ever going to use the OVF I could not see the point of paying for it. Second, they are of a similar size and weight, Third, I have the flex of using the small Fuji 'Cron lenses should I wish to. And fourth, the XE4/27 was £350 cheaper.

So instead, I went two other ways, and if you're like me, maybe you'll enjoy them as much as I do:

The Ricoh GR III is not a 35 mm equivalent,

I have looked at this and the newly released GRIIIx with the 40mm equivalent lens, but for outdoors the lack of a VF is a no-no for me; tried that, been there, never again.

But please don't take this as a diss on the X100 series of cameras. They are wonderful devices that can produce great pictures. They just were not for me.

I agree, in fact, I have often said in past posts that the X100V (or the previous variants) is a heart over head choice. I did enjoy it, it does take great images and it does have a tactile feel, but I preferred the XE4.

Many people seem to regard the viewfinder critical to their photography, in this thread. I wonder about that.

I know I felt exactly that way, back in DSLR days. I remember I still harbored that feeling when I got my first Fuji Mirrorless. I mean, I love the beautiful, bright, huge viewfinder on my X-T2.

But, when I got the Ricoh GR, I learned to shoot blind, from the hip. Blind shooting can be astonishingly powerful. You can talk to people, while quietly "fidgeting with something", and without breaking eye contact or shoving a big box in your face, take a picture. This sounds way more creepy than it is. Imagine taking a picture of your child without interrupting your play. Or taking a picture of a scenery while walking/talking with a friend. Or taking a picture while riding your bike. Or driving a car.

Ever since, I alternate freely between viewfinder and back screen (on cameras that have both). And I am quite comfortable with shooting screen-only. Honestly, I used the X100T mostly hand-held, which probably explains why I didn't gel with it. Somehow, a fixed wide-angle just begs to be shot blindly, to me.

I wonder how much of my prior reliance on the viewfinder was essentially a vestigial phobia from my DSLR days.

Anyway, this should in no way be taken as a criticism of viewfinder-shooting. Not having a viewfinder is definitely a disadvantage. But, to me at least, there are certain styles of shooting that don't require one.

...and indoors you loose some part of the wider angle of the GRIII because you can not lean back and press the camera to your face. That is not an issue outdoors or by "blind" shooting. When I had the Sigma Merrill, I did add a 50mm Voigtländer OVF for ease of camera use.

I have a 100f. I like having a viewfinder. For me it's much easier to hold a camera with a viewfinder steady.

Additionally, I like the images from the 100f and the fact that it's relatively small so it's not quite as off putting as using my larger Nikon cameras when I'm shooting. Makes a wonderful travel camera for my needs.

But each to his/her own, that's what makes the world and photography interesting.

LAH50 wrote:

I have a 100f. I like having a viewfinder. For me it's much easier to hold a camera with a viewfinder steady.

Additionally, I like the images from the 100f and the fact that it's relatively small so it's not quite as off putting as using my larger Nikon cameras when I'm shooting. Makes a wonderful travel camera for my needs.

But each to his/her own, that's what makes the world and photography interesting.

The 100f was my gateway drug into the Fuji ecosystem after using Nikons for 40 years.  I do have various Nikon fast primes and fast zooms but I simply got tired lugging them around.  I still have my Nikons to include a D810 and D700 but have gotten very use since getting a XPro3.  I find I only grab the X100f or XPro3 for shooting.

bastibe wrote:

...but do like compact cameras and the 35 mm (equivalent) viewpoint:

Then you are probably like me. Because I just didn't get along with the X100T. The OVF's parallax made me miss shots, the body is surprisingly chunky, but the lens too tiny to grab, and that close-up haze was a let-down. I wanted to like the camera, I really did, but it didn't work out between us.

You know that you can switch from the OVF to the EVF right?

Zaax wrote:

bastibe wrote:

...but do like compact cameras and the 35 mm (equivalent) viewpoint:

Then you are probably like me. Because I just didn't get along with the X100T. The OVF's parallax made me miss shots, the body is surprisingly chunky, but the lens too tiny to grab, and that close-up haze was a let-down. I wanted to like the camera, I really did, but it didn't work out between us.

You know that you can switch from the OVF to the EVF right?

Yes. Of course. But I feel that the OVF is one of the central selling points of the X100 (and X-Pro) series. There is something direct and real about window finders that gives a different feel to photography. I actually love it!

But I guess I wanted to have an OVF experience like in the analoge rangefinder I had for a while. In contrast to a rangefinder patch, however, the X100's focusing rectangle makes parallax errors. The green OVF focusing rectangle can be directly above a, say, head, but the camera is focused on the background behind the head, due to the parallax.

I know there are ways to work around that, by judging the focusing distance based on the focusing rectangle's positions, or using the cute little focusing mini-EVF. But with way, I found myself second-guessing the optical viewfinder a lot, switching back and forth between the unreliable-but-nice OVF and the reliable-but-boring EVF. This frustrated me, and is probably a large part of why I didn't gel with the camera.

Another thing that annoyed me in comparison to the rangefinder, was that the OVF takes a short time to "wake up" as you raise it to your face. One of the really cool things about a rangefinder is that it is always "on". You raise it to your face, adjust focus, and trip the shutter. The X100's OVF can of course be looked through as you raise it to your eye, but it takes about half a second or so for the eye sensor to detect my face, and draw the UI. It's even longer with the little mini-EVF, or the big EVF, as it has to snap the EVF shades into place first. The issue might be exacerbated by my wearing glasses.

The way I like to shoot is have the camera in my hand, and observe. Then, just for a short moment, I raise the camera to my face, and take the shot. Then lower the camera again. So you can imagine that any lag between raising the camera and actually being able to use it, is subtly frustrating to me. Perhaps that is part of why I like from-the-hip shooting. No viewfinder means no delay.

To its credit, the X100T works well for shooting blindly or from the back screen. But so does the X-T2, and the Ricoh GR. So after a while, I sold the X100T, because I found myself consistently choosing the X-T2 or GR over of the X100T.

No hard feelings, though. I bought it used, I had my fun, I sold it without loss. I took several memorable pictures with it. It is a great camera. Just, as I said, not for me.

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR.   Makes no sense whatsoever.

liggy wrote:

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Not to you. It does to me.

You really do not need to sell the X100 to me. It's great that you like it! There are a lot of things to like about it! If you enjoy it, that's fantastic for you! I'm not taking that that away from you, nor do I intend to sour your feelings about your camera. But it is not for me.

Am I not allowed to voice my criticisms of it, or state my own preferences?

bastibe wrote:

liggy wrote:

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Not to you. It does to me.

You really do not need to sell the X100 to me. It's great that you like it! There are a lot of things to like about it! If you enjoy it, that's fantastic for you! I'm not taking that that away from you, nor do I intend to sour your feelings about your camera. But it is not for me.

Am I not allowed to voice my criticisms of it, or state my own preferences?

I just said it doesn’t make sense to criticize the OVF when you find it perfectly fine to shoot a camera like the GR that makes you shoot like an iPhone.

I don’t shoot my X100S much lately because the A1 is just ridiculously good.  That said I never felt compelled to proclaim that in the Fuji forum.

Shoot what you like.  No one is suggesting otherwise.

Ricoh GR IIIx

Are you baiting us? X100V is the best of its kind under $4000.  The end  😂

brokenhat wrote:

Are you baiting us? X100V is the best of its kind under $4000. The end 😂

Well there is no other camera like it… so you either like or don’t.

liggy wrote:

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR. Makes no sense whatsoever.

I can see some sense in it, though it may initially seem obscure.

The way that the OVF/EVF is implemented in the X-Pro and the X100 series (at least the X-Pro2 and X100S/T which I’ve had) makes it—to my mind at least—a little less than ideal if you’re primarily an EVF user. You’re forced to either turn off the rear screen entirely (including menu operation) or, if you want the eye sensor, you get the clicking and the delay of the camera flipping the EVF back and forth every single time you raise it to your eye.

If you’re an EVF shooter who is happy to adapt, then if you’re happy to adapt to being an OVF shooter then the X100 is great, and if you’re happy to adapt to being a “noVF” shooter then the GR is great (and brings the size/weight/stealth benefits of ditching the viewfinder). However if you want to remain an EVF user (which I do, having used GRs for many, many years and having now discovered EVFs that are excellent compared to the old Ricoh and Panasonic ones I’ve tried in the past) then it kind of feels like it was never intended to be the right camera for you, and that you should use the X-E series instead.

As you say, you certainly can use the X100 as an EVF camera. It just constantly reminds you that, in its opinion, you’re not using it properly 😉 Which the GR doesn’t.

I’m still figuring out whether to keep my X100T or get the 23/2 for my X-E2.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

liggy wrote:

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR. Makes no sense whatsoever.

I can see some sense in it, though it may initially seem obscure.

The way that the OVF/EVF is implemented in the X-Pro and the X100 series (at least the X-Pro2 and X100S/T which I’ve had) makes it—to my mind at least—a little less than ideal if you’re primarily an EVF user. You’re forced to either turn off the rear screen entirely (including menu operation) or, if you want the eye sensor, you get the clicking and the delay of the camera flipping the EVF back and forth every single time you raise it to your eye.

If you’re an EVF shooter who is happy to adapt, then if you’re happy to adapt to being an OVF shooter then the X100 is great, and if you’re happy to adapt to being a “noVF” shooter then the GR is great (and brings the size/weight/stealth benefits of ditching the viewfinder). However if you want to remain an EVF user (which I do, having used GRs for many, many years and having now discovered EVFs that are excellent compared to the old Ricoh and Panasonic ones I’ve tried in the past) then it kind of feels like it was never intended to be the right camera for you, and that you should use the X-E series instead.

As you say, you certainly can use the X100 as an EVF camera. It just constantly reminds you that, in its opinion, you’re not using it properly 😉 Which the GR doesn’t.

I’m still figuring out whether to keep my X100T or get the 23/2 for my X-E2.

That is a little bit outside the box take - I wouldn't have seen that.

Personally I bought the X100S in spite of the OVF, not because of it. I love the WYSIWYG of an EVF. It's not the greatest EVF in the world but it helps me take better photos.

Perhaps if I were primarily a street shooter it really wouldn't matter - I'd just crank it to F8, wait for the moment and snap away - kind of like the way I'd use a GR in snap focus mode.

Regarding your choice - typically I like a slightly longer FL so I grab the XPro2 with the 28mm 2.8 version 2. Love that little lens now that it has an aperture ring. Another one of the things that make Fuji cameras so enjoyable.

In any event slagging off the OVF while being ok with just shooting with the LCD is hypocritical.

liggy wrote:

Regarding your choice - typically I like a slightly longer FL so I grab the XPro2 with the 28mm 2.8 version 2. Love that little lens now that it has an aperture ring. Another one of the things that make Fuji cameras so enjoyable.

Yeah, I’ve recently upgraded my Mk1 27mm to the Mk2. Partly for the aperture ring but a little more for the weather sealing. It was nice to be out shooting in the rain yesterday with that on an X-T2 and not have to shelter the camera at all.

If that lens was f/2 but the same size and the X-E series was weather resistant then I’d have my perfect setup 🙂

In any event slagging off the OVF while being ok with just shooting with the LCD is hypocritical.

I don’t think anyone’s slagging it off. As OVFs go it’s a great one—best I’ve used, anyway—but there are aspects to it which means it just doesn’t gel with some people, and Fujifilm have allowed its presence to compromise the EVF experience just slightly. Which means if you don’t love the OVF then perhaps you can’t fully love an X100. Perhaps 🙂