wow you have the wrong idea of what photography is all about.. this camera is made for street shooters we dont take same photo in every shot google street photography and youll see every photo is different photography isn't always about zooming in on everything.. open your eyes and see the world for what it is photography is about creativity photography is about telling a story in your photos stop looking at things one sided and look at the other side of things you must be a beginner as you dont see what photography is really about yet Im willing to bet you dont even own a camera nor have you researched what photography even means.. grab your phone, or point and shooter and go out on street and try it! maybe you like it maybe you won't but youll learn something without being a clueless internet troll lurking in these articles shooting your mouth off and trying to dictate what you think is best for us

hahaha i take offence at my own photos?? what the hell are you talking about? you dont make any sense at all you're the one so hurt about fixed lenses being stale and unrealistic.. photographers have been shooting street photography with fixed lenses since photography was invented in the 1800's! you seem to think zooms are the greatest and best means to better photos which is total rubbish! street shooters don't care if cameras have fixed lenses or not! we only care about getting out there to shoot great street photos with fixed lenses and if ya don't like them, hey thats too bad go play with your big expensive zooms for all I care.. and by the way I don't post my photos on the internet cuz too many will steal them and claim them as their own and profit off me I keep em safe in my storage I only sell prints to private clients, businesses, local papers and I also sell prints of various sizes at street fairs.

Complaints (more like commentary) about price are foolish? So what if you lived in a small isolated town and upon going to the grocery store you found that they're charging $8.50 for a gallon of milk? What if your favorite local movie theater decided to start charging $40 for a show ticket? How about if you had a medical condition with symptoms that could be alleviated by a drug that sold for $2 per dose in Mexico, but could only be legally obtained here in the states for 10x that amount? What if new government policies created an environment wherein the price for our beloved (imported) toys went thru the roof and this particular Fuji (mentioned above) shot up to $4,500? Would it then be ok (in your opinion) to complain?

Thematic, I don't have a clue what he's on about either. I don't think anyone does.

i ramble like that sometimes ... thing are said makes some sense

Whoa your still rambling. Ha.

i think you are being unkind to a non native speaker

On an English website? I'm German, and respect the language other countries. He should as well. If he rambles and looks like that its his choice.

his sentences are awkward, but meaning of the thoughts are
plain.allow me to translate .

kobakokh: "Just new GFX pleased me much"
translation: im excited by the new gfx medium format digital camera.

kobakokh: "i will collect money for it."
translation:I will save my money in order to purchase one...
.
kobakokh: "its a first real camera in MF which can be use in everyday life..".
translation :i think it will end up being the first MF camera that convenient enough to use easily, every day..

kobakokh ".. And its now in great price.."
translation: also , i think fujis asking price is great.

i hope that helped, or are you only here to mock his attempts at joining the discussions here ?.. I also translate jive , yuppie , valley girl, flaming queen , "trumpspeak" heroin addict ,and appalachian\ Elizabethan for those challenged at deciphering meaning in various dialects and google translate engines

sorry i couldnt resist .....cheers, or .....

guten Tag Herr

Nice try.

youheardright, can you explain why a rangefinder style came can't be made to focus well under low light? I get the bit about the lens not being ideal but I am unsure as to why the camera itself is the problem.

Could be, but as we've tried to emphasize, this isn't a final production model and many changes may yet be made.

You can then go with the Leica M10. It just overexposes.

There is only a problem with the meter if you cannot rely on it to predict how much compensation you need. Frequently dialing in compensation is the sign of a good photographer, not a bad meter.

@whtchocla7e -- I've tried many Fuji cameras, the same thing happens in RAW. The only RAW converters that seem to be able to breath life into Fuji RAW files are PhotoNinja and RawTherapee -- both with other serious faults.

@Contra Mundum For better or worse... that's what real life is actually like. Especially when you taking photos in cloudy weather in either New York or Seattle (not the warmest most cheerful of places in the middle of the winter).

Canon and Sony by default added saturation and warmth to give images a "brighter than life" quality to them. In reality, in 99% of lighting condition people do not look like they are lit by the golden light of a unicorn behind.

Look at yourself in the mirror, right now... I doubt you are surrounded by brilliance and cheerfulness and light... so if someone were to take a photo of you, it isn't the fault of the camera... it's the lighting and surrounding you happen to be in - which for 99% of situations... is not great.

I do not understand why you say that Fuji colors are depressing.
Many quote that jpeg colors are ok and do not even need raw.
I agree that some pictures taken under cloudy conditions are less punchy but otherwise, colors are ok except maybe here with nr 37 with cyan/magenta shift ?

"For better or worse... that's what real life is actually like." -- That's a bold statement especially without any evidence provided. Nobody really remembers or cares, for that matter, what the "real life" is like. People have very bad memory for colors or tonality.

When dealing with Fuji, I found that it only suited well if you want to produce something moody and depressing. Dark rusty colors come out well. But greens in nature shots are dreadful. Skin colors often look sick. And in good light, where every camera shows its best, not Fuji, there is no life in Fuji images, no brilliance, no microcontrast, the colors look artificial, with poor color separation, almost like color fill in paintings.

The funny thing, after trying almost every Fuji camera, I only kept X-A1, because the bayer sensor in that camera is able to produce a lot better images than any of the trans.

Quite the contrary, Legacy. It is a major problem that most cameras don't have the dynamic range to properly capture the halo that follows me.

Agree. The A-1 and the original Fuji X100 have better IQ than the tranny sensors, even though the lens on the X100 is not defined by its sharpness.

Yep. I've skipped the X100S and T in favour of the X100 because I prefer the original CMOS colour rendition to X-Trans.

@Contra Mundum

'"For better or worse... that's what real life is actually like." -- That's a bold statement especially without any evidence provided. '

It's pretty easy, since evidence of "real life" is available every second of every minute of every every hour of day away from your computer screen. Like I said in my previous post... just look at yourself in the mirror right now... are you suffused with brilliance and cheerfulness?

Maybe you an I just have different tastes. While I'm currently using a Nikon D610, I have tried out a couple of the Fuji cameras and they definitely render colors differently... here are some shots I took when I borrowed it for a weekend. I don't claim these are great photos, but I would say the mood of the color is pretty" cheerful" and "full of life"

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/433/32372436211_6c0e1d2673_h.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/335/32342286572_43797a2a9a_h.jpg

Great images there @LegacyGt. That skin colour sure looks healthy & full of life! The same shot I've got any given time when using my old & outdated XE1.
Skin colours looked 'sick' @contra mundum? NOPE. But I do encounter that a lot with my sony dslr - yellowish sick skin.

These are not the only f/2 soft images from X-100x I have seen. This lens is truly soft at f/2 and portrait distances, no matter the iso. Checked.

" Viewing these in browser generally makes the images go beyond 100% view, sometime 200%... It does with chrome for me..." -- no it doesn't, unless your Chrome is set to 200% magnification, which would be ridiculous because the fonts would be too large for normal reading. Absolute majority of people would have their browser set at default setting 100%. That means the images would be either scaled down to the screen size or to 100% if you click on them.

Contra - Ok well opening the same image in photoshop at 100% is around half the size as it is in my browser... Care to explain that? I have a Macbook Pro with retina screen,

It's a $1300 camera with an APS-C sized sensor.....how much performance do you expect from the lens?? Put another way....it sounds like you expect Leica Summicron performance tossed in with the bigger sensor and camera all for $1300. A Leica Summicron sells for $3000. Even the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 (just as good as the Summicron IMO) sells for $1100.

Alternatively, try the beta of Iridient X-Transformer, that's just been released for Windows. That converts the files to a (huge) DNG files with Intidient's demosaicing.

I'll be writing something about it in the coming days.

"Might as well grab a FF Sony compact if I need to do post processing to get what I like. One more reason to hang on to the original X100."

That should be an easy fix with the X100F. You have the ability to tweak the shadows and highlights for JPEGs from -2 to +4.

mcshan - The poem on the wall was written by Zoe Leonard in 1992. Every time I walked past it there were people standing and reading or standing and photographing it. It was attracting a lot of attention, so I wanted to capture some of that reaction.

'Gear Acquisition Syndrome' I believe.

The famous Fuji colors and the infamous Sony ones.

The mechanical dials and the leaf shutter are a good point !!!

As for the "famous or infamous" colors, those are mostly ad slogans. If you do your raw processing you can make it look whatever you want. If all you care is JPGs, then Fuji may have an edge, provided their color palette matches your taste.

@BBQue...Each camera has its own colour signature and the colour palette variation across the brands, Fuji vis a' vis Sony is even more pronounced. It is very difficulty to tweak RAW file to meet the colour signature of another brand....I have tried to make my Nikon NEF colour like Fuji and failed miserably!! Your mileage may be different but I can bet you are talking on theoretical point of view.

I doubt many people would cross-shop an x100f and an a6500. They are totally different classes of camera. I'm sure it would be the xt2 or xt20 that would be compared to the a6500. The x100f is for folks looking for a fixed lens, large sensor camera - not an ILC, I mean c'mon man... it's not that hard to figure out.

A Fuji shot usually has a more realistic representation of color than a Sony with its artificial look, specially on the greens.

I have absolutely no interest in a Sony product for whatever reason.

This 100F, I'm going to own. For whatever reason.

its still very smartphone-like-washy at higher isos (even the iso1600 ones miss all fine detail) and i guess the lens isn´t better than before, either. if you want sharpness its not a camera for you.