Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 2, 2011


Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: I hear that there's a dust-contamination problem with this camera. Anyone have any experience in this area?

What about white orbs? Does the X100 have this problem?

No and no. No experience with dust contamination in my x100, and no, the x100 does not have a white orb problem.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2012 at 21:56 UTC

Has anybody heard anything about price? A typical compact with these specs would be several hundred dollars alone.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 07:21 UTC as 90th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PolarHki: It would be great if that planned new X body below the X-Pro 1 would have:

- A micro four third-type sensor, with the same sensor technology as used in the X-Pro1 (so maybe image quality/resolution would get comparable to a "usual" APS-C sensor)

- Rangefinder style body, but smaller than X-Pro1 (maybe about like X100)

- Hybrid viewfinder like X-Pro1 / X100

- Fully articulated screen

- Decent built-in flash, in addition to external flash shoe

- A good range of buttons for direct manual control, although not necessarily as much as on the X-Pro 1 (won't be reasonable on a smaller body either)

Such a camera would be a clear buy, at least for me, but I believe for many others, too.

The X-pro1 body is 43mm deep, but the sensor is only 17.7mm from the flange, meaning you have almost a full inch behind the sensor. It seems like a lot of the m4/3 cameras manage to push the sensor very far back in the camera body. Assuming Fuji were to do the same thing I think they could make an x-mount camera with similar dimensions to the smallest m4/3 cameras, even with an APS-C sensor.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm patents hybrid organic/CMOS sensor (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

edu T: "The organic material's sensitivity to only visible light also avoids the need for a UV-filter in front of the sensor (silicon sensors are sensitive to UV light)."

Given the wavelength x output curve shown, didn't you mean "IR-filter" and "IR light" instead?

Right, and this one looks like it is INsensitive to IR (and much of the red spectrum) as well. If it is insensitive to IR it shouldn't need an IR filter. Regarding UV, it is off the graph to the left and although it looks like the graph is falling off sharply as you go deeper into UV territory, you can't really tell without seeing the full graph. If it is also INsensitive to UV, then it might not need a UV filter either, making the comments from the article true as well.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2011 at 20:33 UTC
On article Fujifilm patents hybrid organic/CMOS sensor (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

edu T: "The organic material's sensitivity to only visible light also avoids the need for a UV-filter in front of the sensor (silicon sensors are sensitive to UV light)."

Given the wavelength x output curve shown, didn't you mean "IR-filter" and "IR light" instead?

It kind of depends on what the rest of the left side of the graph looks like. The graph only shows the visible portion of the light spectrum. It does look like the technology at present might have a pretty big problem with reds, though. I think you're right about IR, but typically there isn't an IR filter.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2011 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Rachotilko: I think Fuji is scared to death now, judging by this cowardish response. They bid too high a stake on this sensor, considering the failure of X-S1 (with its advanced&expensive lenses) would be much more costly for the company.

Its hard not to have sympathy with Fuji's effort in fulfilling customers wishes despite the trends. On the other hand, the timing of the steps was chosen as if the maximizing (as opposed to the minimising) the possible damage was driving the product introduction schedule.

Their response bears with itself an unambiguous message:

1, the sensor flaw cannot be fixed by firmware
2, X-S1 (admittably a wonderful concept in itself) is in deep trouble.

Fuji has been hittin git out of the park lately with the X100, X10 and soon the X-S1. If it wasn't for the WBS the X10 would be a near perfect product (and still is). Fuji has been very good to fix the sticky apertures of affected X100's, and, while a little slow, have released some very beneficial firmware updates for it and will be for the X10 soon as well. If you look back at where Fuji was as a company just 18 months ago, today they are light years ahead.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Well... it's still a very nice camera. But personally, I will wait for the X20. I bet it won't have this problem, although it might have a few new problems...

The X30 will be even better, and it will solve most of the X20's problems to boot. You're better off just waiting for it instead. ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

Valentinian: upsetting.
everytime I see a new camera , and say, yes, this is the camera I am going to buy (just wait a few weeks to be sure), then suddenly awful problems with the camera are revealed: lataly it was the Fuji X100, then the Sony SLT-A77 ( great camera, but...it is very noisy). and now this beautiful Fuji X10 has a rotten inside.
So I have two questions:
1) what's going on with manufacturers lately?
2) why Dp review didn't reveal this flaw when doing a PREVIEW and posting pictures samples? none of the pictures then published showed this flaw; why?

Because it does not happen in every photograph. In the real world it is fairly rare. (I'll probably get skewered for that statement, but it takes some pretty harsh lighting to cause it to happen.) It's too bad that it is hardware related, but hopefully the firmware fixes will make a significant enough difference.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2011 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

alwye: Watch out, X100! Here comes the real competitor!

Fuji has it's own mirrorless interchangeable lensfinder camera(s) rumored to come out soon.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2011 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

lbjack: Andy, I remember your posting a comment on the forum, that if Fujifilm addressed the firmware issues, then definitely -- Gold Award. Apparently, they haven't addressed enough for you. Exactly what important ones remain? All of them?

Andy, I appreciate you. You're review is very thorough and well thought out. I think everybody who owns an x100 would like it to be a "world beater", but the fact is it simply isn't there yet, and I don't think it will be because opinions differ so much. Reading through your list of bugs the other day, for me several of them are non issues, and there are a few that I'm pretty sure Fuji had them act the way they doon purpose, so I'm pretty sure those will never change. It was good to see with this latest firmware that Fuji also revised the manual, meaning they aren't afraid to add features and/or make changes admitting they could have done something better. I have thoroughly enjoyed my x100, even though it isn't as fast as other cameras I've used and it occasionally refuses to find focus for a few tries. Typically the pictures I get out of it are fantastic. I'm a complete amateur, but the x100 often make me feel like a pro. I'm very satisfied with this camera (quirks and all).

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2011 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

PaulRivers: I still think it was weird that dpreview made such a big deal over iso settings not going over from mode to mode. I've read many posts from people confused as to why they set the iso and it applied in shutter priority (I mean in general, not specific to the x100) or why changing the shutter speed in manual also affected the shutter speed in shutter priority mode.

And then of course there's others that don't change - change the iso on a Canon s95 in Manual and it doesn't affect the other modes (which is good because you wouldn't want to set the iso to 80 in M then find out it is now hard set to 80 in P to), but then setting the shutter speed affects the shutter speed in shutter priority.

Just think it's weird someone made such a huge deal over it. Maybe some other settings make sense, like shooting raw, or file size...stuff like that needs to move from mode to mode. But iso? I'm not sure which I prefer, but I think it's a little weird dpreview made such a huge deal over it.

I'm baffled by all the uproar over auto ISO. Sure, on other cameras it was necessary to switch off auto ISO to set your ISO speed exactly, but with the x100 if you leave auto ISO on and just set the ISO speed you want the x100 will nearly always give you exactly that ISO. The only time it won't is when it isn't enough to expose the shot properly. 9 times out of 10 if I want to specify an ISO it is to go higher. Since the x100 uses the specified ISO as a lower limit this works exactly as I would want, even with leaving auto ISO on, with the rare exception that it needs to go even higher than I set to capture the shot. I guess I just don't try to shoot dark subjects in the shadows enough to care that it takes an extra 3 button presses over other cameras to turn off auto ISO.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2011 at 02:52 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11