Shell out the cash like I did and see for yourself. This coming from a Leica guy. The camera is really that good!

@Matt1645f4...I absolutely agree with you. Basically it all started with still cameras getting a video facility to extend their reach and functionality...now, it's okay to review a still camera and crucify it for not having the state-of-the-art video features !!!
How inconsistent can we humans be?

I don't remember saying that we do.

Richard Butler: from the 'Image Quality and Performance' page of the review on the X100F, RAW section:

"...The X100F shot is significantly softer than that of the APS-C Nikon whose sensor we're comparing it with but, then again, it's also softer than Fujifilm's own X-T2, so we suspect this has as much to do with lens characteristics as the sensor or any noise reduction (the effect seems more pronounced on the left of the scene, reinforcing this suspicion)."

and, in the JPEG section:

"The camera's sharpening brings out the fine detail in the image, despite the slight lens softness."

Link to that page: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100f/4

The shot of the test chart is a little soft because the lens isn't great at shooting flat target at close range (those are the characteristics I was referring to). These particular shots are soft but I wouldn't charaterise the lens as soft, overall, if you see the distinction.

I'll revise that text so that it's clearer.

The lens tends to be soft at close range distances (4 feet and closer) and especially at F2 BUT it is a very very small F2 lens.

The idea behind this kind of camera is shooting spontaneous situations at medium range distances and at medium apertures. This would be a perfect camera for zone focusing at F8 or even F11 for example.

@ Don Sata: Gotcha. But soft images at 4' and under is still unacceptable for a $1300 camera.

@Smaug01 it's an specialty camera, not a general purpose DSLR.

Yeah i agree. Its a shame they didnt upgrade the lens and also fix the noisy AF motor. No doubt they are saving it for the next x100 iteration so it is a "brand new feature".

what if I would? Is that bad? Are my decisions as a consumer bothering you?

@ recmar....did you miss the fact that this is the 4th iteration...obviously they can justify the price because it is selling very well...if this was such a bad camera at this price point than it would have died after the first round. In its class compared to the Sony and the Leica it seems like it is not all that expensive after all. (The Sony and the Leica are both very nice cameras....not trying to take anything away from them at all).

Recmar - Fuji doesn't have to justify sheite. Camera is that good.

form follows function. To me is better to see the camera's settings without even turning it on. Answer: dedicated wheels and buttons (shuter speed, aperture, exposure compensation, ISO, AF mode, AF/AE Lock...) ;-)

Apart from how good this camera is technically, please don't belittle the value of good design. As photographers it is natural for us to be drawn to beautiful things, so why should the gear we use not be well designed? And why not pay a bit more for that design? People buy beautiful things (like art) all the time for a lot more money. And I personally think this is the best looking camera on the market.

all ok on mine quite stiff..

The power switch on the X100S hung out over the edge of the body when in the off position (the body curves inwards beneath the switch).

The body on the X100T and F doesn't curve in between the grip and the top plate, so the power switch doesn't overhang to the same degree, so I'd expect it to be harder to knock on by mistake.

GRII failed to kill anything (not that it is a bad camera)....what makes you think #3 will?

With this being the 4th iteration of the x100 camera line I would say it is doing quite well without your money.

Cargo shorts, GR in one pocket, X100 in another, and the Fuji 50mm converter in a third would make a great travel kit.

Ricoh GR is an alternate choice and/or a complementary camera to X100's line.

As much as I love the GR, it is not a killer to any X100's line. Either you choose one of them (28 vs 35mm) or you have them both (along with the extensions, you'll have 21, 28, 35, 50).

As for the X70, I hope GRIII would offer more.

No EVF = No FUN.

Funny, coming from Canon I found my X100S's skin tones to be unnatural sometimes, in certain kinds of light. A little too often, unfortunately.

I would say the possible GRIII compares more to the X70.

But GR has sharper images and better lens.

ogl.....your opinion only.....I find both cameras have great merit. For my dollars I prefer the OVF/EVF, style, quality, IQ, and 35mm equiv of the x100. I also believe the GR lines up better against the x70.

Up until the X100, the GR was one of the best ergonomic cameras out there. The GR film version even better yet. However, I would put the X100 against the lot of them. With the rear layout upgraded on the X100F, I would suggest this camera will be mighty tough to beat in the handling department. The Leica Q could take a few design ideas from Fuji - that's not a knock against Leica, but it is a big reason the X100 is as good as it is. 10 yrs ago, Fuji was headed the way of Nokia - look at them now! Kudos to Fuji - love the Acros addition as well.

You can see all the little scrubs with their Richo’s on YouTube calling themselves, “street photographers”. It’s so cute and trendy like the Rubik’s cube was. 😂😂😂

I love it when scrubs get butthurt and triggered running for their safe space. 😂😂😂

You’re not even making logical sense. Give it up already, I’m sure you can go hang out with the guys and do some street shooting with your Richo’s and then get back in time to watch the Kardashian‘s and The View you recorded earlier and whatever you SJW’S watch. 🤦🏼‍♂️

And here I thought only the Sony and Leica fanboys were easily triggered. Wow, you irrefutably proved my argument.

I don't think I've made the point clearly. We have the X100F in the office for a few more days, so we could re-shoot the chart. However, the chart would still be flat and the X100 series lens doesn't represent flat subjects very well, hence the difference between the test chart and the sample images.

GR=28mm. no bueno.

GR has a 35mm crop mode.

Hi, If there is a GR111 it won't even be close. The lack of EVF alone will continue to separate the two brands. I have a GRII and love it but it isn't as good as the X100T. I doubt Ricoh will even try to equal the X100f.
As noted above my post the GRII is 28mm. Yes you can crop to 35 but who buys a camera knowing they may crop half their shots? Some love 28mm but many don't.
The GR line compares to the X70.
Fun discussion. Thanks for the above comments.

@mschan

If you open up the studio comparison, put on lowest ISO, RAW and look at the details, I think the GR beats the X100 on a lot of areas and the in built RAW processing on the GR is amazing. Yes the X100F is still superior in a few ways, but you'd hope so for double the price.

LOL, problem is this is a digital camera. Not only that, it's an autofocus camera. You need to have some means of navigating the menu, selecting focus points, playing back photos, zooming in for manual focus, changing drive mode, etc. If your film camera had these features, there were buttons for most of it. Take a look at the Nikon F6 - it's a world of buttons.

The alternatives are to not allow you to do any of that, or implement it with a touchscreen. I'd much rather be able to use physical buttons, personally.

Just remember this, motion is caused by all kinds of things, the subject or camera move 5 axis stabilization helps with camera end. Most people are alive when you shoot them ( until you shoot them, hehe) I early photography you took pictures of live adults and dead children, two minute exposer. People are always moving. Believe me I at one time shot live stage production. All this stuff helps. In my youth I was able shoot at about 1/15 hand held with my Nikormat and a 50mm lens. I hate to depend on nifty stuff, I would rather depend on me.

@ogl...Today is the day you have proved your worthlessness, photographically.

Yeh, the RAW is useless. That is, if you don't make any photographs with it.

Mama always said...."useless is as useless does"....

Dude... I have more than 12'000 raw files from a x100t to give context.

Zooms cannot be compact with 200mm. May be 24-72 or 24-85 (LX100?)

no, there is the X100T, the X100S and the X100 with a leafshutter as well ;)
The X-T20 with the 23/2 will be get you a sharper image with more megapixels.
It will not be as slim/lightweight as the X100 and you miss out on the OVF (but gain other things of course)

Thanks.

I guess it's something that came from other sources.
The president does it, so hearsay is not that bad, isn't it?

you are right. It's smaller, has zoom and a stabilized lens.
I really wonder, why fuji is selling crappy X100s and all the rest when they get owned by canon that heavily...

X10x10x
Ur right.......

A Ricoh GR is smaller

and better

Yeh, just give me the 2027 version already! Why do I have to wait?

The difference between a 1998 computer and a 2017 computer is massive.

The difference between a 2017 camera and a camera from 2027 will be massive.

The difference between the Fujifilm x100, x100s and x100t is minimal and mostly incremental. The x100f is a bigger slight upgrade and should have been the x100s. But I guess all the Fuifilm fanboys are happy to throw money at anything Fujifilm related.

No, the fujifilm fanboys just buy one camera and stick with it. If you don't understand that, no one can convince you...

You can make it sound like the companies deliberately slow down improvements and maybe they do, who knows. I don't believe it as I think, the better the camera, the better for a companies sales.

But the point is: All the X100 cameras were good when judged initially in reviews.

Demanding that a X100F should have been the fist X100 model update is ridiculous.
The differences between X100, X100S and X100T were not massive, I agree but they were significant enough to release a new model.

New models don't devalue your camera. I still works as on the day you bought your camera.
You are not cheated. But others are given the choice of a better camera. Easy.

Hi Richard, a major problem with these test target photos is they're so dependent on the particular lens's quality. For instance, the Sony A6000 with a zillion dollar Zeiss lens trumps the Fujifilm X100F's fixed lens, but I would be really interested to see the A6000's results with its standard kit lens. Any chance of Dpreview heading the way of DXO by using your target test on a range of lens. That way, we can get a true gauge of the camera's sensor, rather than it being skewed by Dpreview choosing to test some cameras with their highest-end lenses, while others are tested with lesser lenses, that could give a false impression on the camera's sensor.

I have both a A6000 with the kit lens and the X100F. after using the X100F constantly since it arrived I've been comparing it to my other cameras.
I have a a6000 a Fujifilm XT-1 X70 X100F Nikon D7100 and a Pentax K70
At least to my eyes the X100f is better than the a6000 with the kit lens.
however i tend to shoot wide open at the lowest F/stop to focus on my subjects. the Sony kit lens can't compare with the X100F at F/2 since its only a
f/ 3.5. but I still love my a6000 and with the Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens it has awesome creamy bokeh. hope this helps

sorry but i think any lens can handle a flat surface and that is what lens engineers use to test lens, of course many other aspects to lens performance, but resolution is the one we all spend $$ for to get better lens.

so sure dpr could and should improve their testing, i think many times the focus seems off or the lens DOF must be 1mm or less, which is nonsense.

so if this is the real result of a poor lens then that was the major improvement needed.

but conceptually it seems a really nice, fixed lens cam, but sigma does it better w/ their fixed non zoom lens - DP series, not the same but the target to replicate.

besides a poor lens lets down a great sensor and camera, that is the sad part OR dpr testing sucks !!!!

Do they? May wide-angles are designed to have curvature as it's useful for such things as interiour shots.

no, that is of course a mistake.
And it is not Fuji being Fuji. Attitude like this is the root of the prejudice we enjoy from day to day...

You have the regular 30 seconds plus bulk.
It only shows 4 seconds, when you put the shutter speed to "T", then you have to use the dial to adjust.

Another common misconception is the minimal shutter speed of 1/4th of a second when OVF energy saving is enabled. bugs quite a lot of people...

probably not so I may have to resort to the 100f

Seriously - who buys an X100 to shoot video..??

@Peter Bendheim and @SLRist, when did I say I'm looking for a video camera? I own A7rII, A7s, RX1rII, Rx100IV. All of them are great for both stills and video. So, I do not "need" anything else for video. Nor am I criticizing Fuji for not putting more effort into video options. Plus, I've already owned both original X100 and X100s and used to love them.
I just was curious to see how the video quality compares to the previus generations and to other cameras. Regardless what I use, I'm always recommending cameras (including Fuji's Pany's, Oly's, Pentax, even CaNikons) for my friends that ask my help.
My comment is because of that "bar score". I think that Dpreview ranked the video quality way too low, as if it was terrible. If it is at least as good as X-Pro2, I think it's good enough and should be mentioned.

I'm pretty sure this camera is worse than anything than Sony for video, but this is not an all purpose camera at all.

Not me, I prefer the more disciplined approach of getting as much as possible (including cropping) correct in-camera rather than cleaning the shot up in post. Not sure what you mean by "more options," since adding 4:3 does precisely that, and if you don't like it you have the obvious option of not selecting it. But when there's already 1:1 and 16:9, there's not much of a reason not to have 4:3, especially when all the digital compacts Fuji ever made as well as their new $6500 medium format GFX-50S shoot it natively.

I think his point still holds "for the price".

Compromises between size/performance need to be made as well, Canon's newer 35mm 1.4 II L got bigger and heavier to get sharper, Sigma's are super sharp wide open but they are not exactly small and they do hit diffraction surprisingly quickly so yeah compromises, but I do find that "on paper" the X100 series always had a little trouble justifying its exestince, that is until you held one....

Sorry about that Richard...I should have specified Comments section. I understand the cost of upgrading predicament.

The negative comments come from the hate brigade, the people who have never tried one, people who are mine is bigger than yours gearheads, people who don't take photographs, and so on. It's to be expected. The internet is full of anonymous haters.

You're right Peter, it's why I hate the internet. ;)

I'd love one of these to play with but can't see me having the disposable cash anytime soon for that price. I'm sure it'd be worth it if I did.

Posted in a friendly way: I disagree with the "hate" comment. To me most posts are merely opinions. I would not expect every comment to be positive about any camera out there. We all don't like the same music, books, movies or cars so why would cameras be any different? I certainly don't view negative posts about a camera as "hate". We all know what "hate" really is and comments such as "soft lens" "Leica Q is better" don't meet the definition. Maybe that word has become over used?

It would be boring around here if only positive posts about products were allowed. I want to read all the comments both thumbs up and down. It keeps the DPR interesting enough that I pop in three or four times a day. One of my favorite cameras is the Leica X Vario and it doesn't upset me one bit to read the many negative posts about it. I'm old now and I don't take anything personal out here. Again..posted in a friendly way.
Take care.

I agree with both @Peter Bendheim, and @mcshan. I do think that some people just like to be trolls and try to poke people just to see a reaction. Many of us are very dedicated to our brand of choice and can be easily offended by a harsh comment. Especially when it is uninformed or just nasty.

I want to see people question this or that, and to make constructive criticisms, as you said @mcshan it could get boring very fast without other opinions. Also there are dedicated forums for only this and that brand where everyone agrees and loves the gear.

I'd like to see DPR implement a "Dislike" button for a comment along side the "Like" comment. I think YouTube has this. Once enough people (Decided by DPR) clicked Unlike, the comment could be hidden or removed. At lease at some point a DPR staff would look at the comment and decide, it's valid or just nasty.

I would hope this community would respect honest criticism and opposing opinions and let them be. What do you think about that DPR?

V

It can't be true. The F can't stand for 'four', Japanese companies are scared of the number 4. They always jump from 3 to 5. The bravest of them can add Mk IV.

Yes, I really like that about the RX1R II. I tried the X100 but for a travel camera is quite big, the RX1R is already borderline. The only feature I really miss is in camera RAW development. Sometimes I am not sure that if the review stuff makes really long trips. In that case size and weight really matters. I personally believe that the Ricoh GR is still the best travel camera is you want some quality and low light pictures.

And I really would miss a mode dial where you can change settings fast. The Ricoh GR excels here again. So selling the X100 as a travel camera is a little bit far stretched. Maybe if you do a cruise.