|
john ashpool posted:So, the Fujifilm FinePix X100. Its not a compact, but its pretty drat small. My question is, how(if at all) would you focus with the hybrid viewfinder? It hasn't been really clear if the optical part is rangefinder coupled, but if you are viewing a live view out of the sensor, it could just magnify the middle like most manual focus cameras of this type. It could also project Xs or red squares in the frame and blink them when focus is achieved on the sensor under those marks. It's not 100% clear but I am fairly sure they will have a solution for both live view and optical viewfinder modes.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
HPL posted:I think Fuji is making a major mistake here. You don't make a camera look like that and charge that much without having rangefinder focusing, even if it's just a simulated mode that uses the AF sensors for data. Sony or Samsung could easily release something very comparable stylistically and wipe the X100 off the map in a second. If the X100 were $500 I would say it's fine but if they're going to be getting up in the $1000+ territory, they had better be bringing something awesome to the table to compete with the other APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless camera systems otherwise they're competing against the likes of the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7. The reason I want this over the m4/3 is that it has a usable viewfinder. I am not sure if I'll use optical + AF overlay and trust it, or use the EVF mode most, but I am down for a preorder at the Icelandic dealer, and he says they should get them in same time as the US, so I'll be posting my review when I get it. I mean, I can't really verify focus has been achieved (purely based on what looks blurry vs not) with my 5D and it has a much larger viewfinder. When the AF square blinks, I trust what's under it is focused, and the x100 can be used exactly like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
I think some people forget the main draw of a rangefinder. It isn't the focusing accuracy, because all RFs have focusing errors all over the place with parallax and near/far inaccuracies. The main draws are: 1. small size/weight while still maintaining large film/sensor 2. only one side of your face is covered, rather than the whole thing, leading to a possibly less threatening and more intimate connection 3. quiet The x100 as it stands on paper fulfills all of these points.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:So does the Samsung NX100. You can get a hot shoe EVF for it. Like I said, it wouldn't take much for the competition to slap a built-in viewfinder on the corner of their mirrorless APS-C cameras to match the X100. I'll stand by my point that I think Fuji is making a tactical error. Either that or they're biting off more than they can chew. Er, no, a hotshoe EVF has the same face filling problems an SLR does. At least for me, hotshoe EVFs make the camera larger, clunkier and more fragile. A built in one would be ok, but having looked at the NX100 when it was announced, it doesn't draw me in at all, feature or design wise, whereas the X100 does. It's possible they won't succeed with the camera, but unless the sensor is a dog, I'm pretty sure it will be my 2nd camera for a long time. Pompous Rhombus posted:You're thinking of framing, not focusing. Oops, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
Borrowed a friend's s90 for the week in Vienna. I took my 5D + 50mm lens also, but didn't want to take the dslr out every time. I stuck the s90 in my coat pocket every time we went out, and didn't even notice it when not using it. Pros: * Always with me. Size was so convenient. * Loved the ring around the lens, I had it set to lens MM equivalents. I was able to use just the lens ring and the exposure adjustment wheel on the back. When aperture doesn't really change dof because of a small sensor, it removes the need to work with aperture/shutter speed for me. I set auto iso, and just let the camera do it's thing. * surprisingly good IQ when the lighting was good. * crazy amounts of detail at all ISO levels. I had no idea it would stay so sharp even at iso 1600 * IS was very affective. I was rocking 1/15 of a second at 105mm and still getting sharp images. Cons: * adjustment wheel rotates way too easily * hated the lack of a viewfinder * lack of blurry backgrounds killed several images for me. My favorites I'm going to manually go in and do some photoshop lens blur to isolate the subject * the IQ overall just lacks quality compared to the 5D. I know this is a duh moment, but you can see it. If I go in with good high pass contrast increases and sharpening, I can get it 90% of the way there, but out of the camera it's just noticeably less punchy in medium and micro contrast. * dynamic range on the high ISO shots is crazy low compared to the 5D Overall I would buy an s90 or s95 from this experience to have an "always with me" camera, but I already put a downpayment to pre order the Fuji x100 and it will fill that niche for me. If I didn't already have a camera, I would get the s90 and be really happy with it for most purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 12:19
|
|
|
Iron Lung posted:I'm having trouble deciding between the Canon S95 and the Panasonic Lumix LX5. I know that the S95 is the overwhelming favorite in this thread (and the world) but the Lumix looks like a great camera as well. I want a P&S for traveling and taking photos on hikes and learning more about photography, so a camera that can fit in my pocket is nice (S95), but not completely necessary. I've read the review comparing the two from DPreview twice, but I'm still having trouble deciding. The Lumix is currently on sale for $399 on Amazon, so the prices are the same. If I would have known about the S95 Black Friday deal I wouldnt be asking! Any advice would be awesome! Honestly the ring around the lens on the s90/95 makes it. I was able to shoot using only the ring and exp dial on the back and nothing else. I had the LX2 and it just wasn't as slick to use, plus the much larger size.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:The only thing I hate about my S90 is the lack of a viewfinder. If a point and shoot with a good viewfinder exists I would consider trading for it. What would you believe to be the point and shoot with the best viewfinder? Or if you happen to not mind a fixed 35mm equivalent, wait for the new x100. (I already pre ordered). I am about to order an 8x10 blurb book where the images are a mishmash from the s90 and 5D with 50mm lens. Really interested to see how similar they end up in print, as I can fairly easily distinguish them on the screen, though not terribly so. Wondering if it will become more or less apparent in print.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:My sister just got a G12, and I played around with it for a bit the other day. The optical viewfinder seemed pretty small and not very useful to me, so definitely try it out first. The camera's controls were really nice though, better than most entry level DSLRs IMO. Even has an ISO dial! Same here. One look through the g12 viewfinder assured me I'd never use it, making the s90/95 much more attractive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:Olympus XZ-1 is looking like it might be a nifty camera. 10MP LX5 sensor, 28-112mm equivalent f/1.8-2.5 lens, HD video. Sort of like a one-up on the Samsung EX1. Indeed, looks ownage! http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusXZ1/ if you read carefully, it stays at f/2.2 till 100mm, which is amazing. Wonder if it's ring can stop you at lens presets like the s90/95? Does the X100 count as a point and shoot? There was some updates and man, I cannot wait for this camera, every update seems nicer and nicer. http://www.finepix-x100.com/story/craftsmanship
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:Roughly $500. I really want to see if that f/2.2 at 100mm is enough to give a blurry background with a portrait. That camera looks soo nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
spf3million posted:The s90/s95 easily fits into the front pocket of a pair of jeans (assuming you are wearing mens jeans). I never use a case with it, haven't seen the need. Can't argue with the price point though. My friend's s90 that I borrowed, I kept it in my wool jacket pocket and it seemed to get a spec on the sensor that would be in a new position each time I turned it on. Eventually it went away, but it made me wish I had used the case the entire time I had borrowed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:d. Had my first play with the X100 in over the weekend, and it's a weird thing. Truly amazing photos, but the interface is hard to get used to, and holy poo poo it takes an absolute age to turn on. It's not a dslr, the controls make perfect sense after even 3-4 days of normal use. With quick start enabled, and a Sandisk Extreme Pro 45mb/s SDcard formatted in camera, it starts up in less than 2 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:It was using the same SD card we've got for emergencies in a RED One, which is a ludicrously fast thing for shooting at 4k, so it wasn't that. I didn't know about a quick-start mode though - I may have to make sure the owner knows about it! It would be odd if he didn't as he's been reading the manual for long before he actually got the drat camera, but he was grumbling about start-up times so maybe he missed it. Would make a lot of difference to its every day usability. He needs to make sure it's that exact card I said, as most people consider a class 10 card to be fast, but it's much slower than the extreme pro in the X100. Also you *must* make sure you format it in camera. It makes a huge difference. I format mine every time I have uploaded my photos onto the computer.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
dissss posted:Why on earth would SD card speed be so critical to startup time? That's a question for a programmer, but it absolutely matters, both the card speed and having it have been formatted in camera. People who put their SDcard in an ipad or other mac product that writes poo poo to the SD card report slower start up times after, and slower write speed. Format in camera, and the problem goes away.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 11:27
|
|
|
I am planning to do my Russia/Mongolia trip with only the x100, but going without any backup whatsoever is just plain stupid, so I'm going to buy a compact. I figure since I have all my normal usage covered with the X100, I want something with a stupid long lens while being tiny, and preferably with raw coverage (leaving out a lot, including the s90, which I liked, but far too short of a lens). Thinking of the Casio fh100. Massive zoom, raw (albeit slow) capture, small size, and pretty cheap, used ones around 175 USD. Anyone tried one of these? If everything goes according to plan it will only be used for possible wildlife spotting, or if I think a compressed landscape shot is so amazing I need to bust it out. Quality seems reasonable for this. I downloaded a raw file and played with it, quality seemed pretty good for such a minuscule sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Anyone have a Nikon P7000? I saw one at a store last night and I really like how the controls look. Reviews seem pretty down on it though, at least compared to the equivalent Canons. The p7000 has the longest lens while retaining RAW and a larger sensor (for a P&S), that said, I think the Xz-1 has better image quality and a much much faster lens. I don't have any experience, was just looking for a backup camera recently. I personally am leaning toward a Casio FH-100 because it has a 240mm lens, reasonable quality, is cheap as poo poo, and can shoot raw if you wait 14 seconds for it to write.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Haggins posted:The X100 seemed like a cool idea but I've been hearing a lot of very bad things about it. I don't know if I trust Fuji. When you look past the hype it seems like laggy, $1200 point and shoot with a busted focusing system and poor battery life. Cost more than a DSLR set up, does less, and doesn't work as well as a $100 point and shoot. We were trashing that guy's "review" over on the x100 forum. He clearly doesn't "get" the camera, and is a gearpig. I've had my x100 for over 5 months, and I haven't touched my 5D since I got it. It gives 5D image quality with the 35L, (better in some ways, zero Chromatic aberrations whereas the 35L has CA like crazy) massive viewfinder, and the focusing works just fine once you get used to the fact there is parallax from using an offset viewfinder. I've borrowed a friend's Canon s90, and there is no contest. Not only is the image quality from the x100 lightyears beyond any pocket camera, but the manual knobs and dials are a delight. The x10 doesn't tempt me solely because I like the X100 so much, and not really willing to give up the large sensor and DoF that comes with it. If I were in the market for a small camera with a zoom though, the x10 would definitely be at the top of my list. A useable optical viewfinder is a godsend, and the x10's looks like it's going to be way nicer than the one on the g12. The viewfinder on the X100 is certainly amazing, just as large and crystal clear as my 5D's. Like literally the only bad reviews of the X100 are from dslr wunderplastik gear pigs with lovely portfolios. You had to look hard to find bad words on it, because every review I've ever seen from actual photographers has been glowing. The numerous prints I've made from mine are certainly all the proof I needed. And how does it cost more than a dslr setup? Name me a single DSLR where you can get a 35mm equivalent F2 lens for 1,200 dollars that autofocuses? I'm guessing by "does less" you mean you can't change lenses? That's kind of the point, and how they get it so small.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 11:13
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:It's probably going to cost way more than the S95, but Fuji just announced a P&S that looks absolutely amazing on paper. The estimated price is 600 dollars. More than the s90 (not sure about the g12) but you get a much nicer build quality and a working OVF, not to mention 1080p video if that's your thing. The build quality and OVF of the X100 alone has me interested in the x10. I even asked my husband if he would use a digital camera if I got him one because I want to somehow justify getting the X10 as well. I love the lens MM markings on the barrel (of the x10), and how you turn it on by rotating the lens. Very cool design.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 11:17
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't know what the low end Nikons are but you could find a body for $400-$900 and pick up a 35 1.8 for $200. Same goes for Sony. Or you could get Rebel XS for under $400 and a Sigma 30 1.4 for $500. You'd save a ton of money, have a camera that can do a lot more, and have a AF system that works. Both of those give you 50mm equivalents, not 35mm, and anyone considering a fixed lens camera is going to feel quite strongly about what that fixed lens is. So it looks like you can't get a 35mm f/2 on a dslr for under 1,200, which is what you suggested. (plus why are you suggesting comparing a used DSLR to a new camera? The new rebels (and the only ones with comparable sensor quality) are 550 dollars. The AF works just fine in the X100. Remember I'm the one that actually owns one? and unlike RC, I've had it for 5 months and use it extensively. I was quoting the person's post about the X10 (the new fuji camera with zoom lens), where they mentioned the Canon s95. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Sep 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Ahh, I was thinking crop factor with the Fuji too. The thing is, the X100 has only one real con (for actual photographers, that is) and that's the fixed 35mm lens. However if that's not a con for you, it is literally the best choice there is, unless you somehow are the only person on earth not to care about size and weight. Nothing else offers the image quality, lens performance/speed, viewfinder size and clarity, and solid metal body with real dials for aperture and shutter. It is an impressive camera, even if it's not for you. No other manufacturer was going in this direction, and they've made a very distinctive camera, with solid design and amazing performance. I liken it to the Wii or iphone/ipad. I don't want either, but I can recognize a good product and piece of engineering when I see it. And even with a 400 dollar body, an f/2 24mm lens is expensive. Most are over 1,000 and they are large and heavy. It's better almost to think of the X100 as an amazing 35mm f/2 lens with a good camera attached, and that is what really shows why it's priced how it is. It's especially impressive that the whole camera is lighter than either Nikon or Canon's 24mm sub-f/2 lenses by themselves. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Sep 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
And back to the Fuji X10, here are two cool links http://yfrog.com/z/gzz7gyxj X100 vs X10 vs G12. Surprising it ekes out more lines per inch than the X100, but most small sensor cameras are really sharp, but the noise and dynamic range seems really impressive, half way between the G12 and the X100. Wondering what ISO that dynamic range is at though, cause the X100 just destroys the g12 above ISO 400, and at ISO 6400 it's just laughable. http://yfrog.com/z/gzz7gyxj X10 (and X100) compared to it's peers on a table so you can see size)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
Haggins posted:A G12 is great for old people. It's got an optical viewfinder and it feels like a real camera when you shoot with it. Granted, it's not as grip-tastic as a bridge camera, but surely even the elderly can see the advantage of carrying around a jacket pocketable camera. Really? I was looking through a g11 viewfinder and it was so small and tunnel like it seemed unusable. I would think an older person with less perfect eyesight would find it even more so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2011 11:42
|
|
|
Pockyless posted:I used my student's G12 today and the viewfinder felt really small. I use an x100 so even a 7D viewfinder feels small, but still. I really want to look through an X10 viewfinder. I love how big and bright the X100's is, it's as large and a bit brighter than the one on the 5D, and I know the x10's will be less bright/large, but I want to know by how much. Just for curiosity sake, I am not buying one. I am not buying one. I am not buying one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
Pockyless posted:S100 announced and previewed at dpreview Looks good. I wish they had kept the lens reach but improved the max aperture at the end, but not sure how possible that is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:That doesn't bother me as much as the lack of information in the finder does. It would be nice to have at least aperture and shutter info as well as something to indicate the focus point or to show the center of the frame since we don't really have any other indicator of where exactly the camera is focusing and whether it's focused of what we want or not. If the metering is as good as on the X100, you won't miss the info. Shoot in Aperture priority mode, hit the aperture for your usage at the start, and that's really the only thing you'd ever need to worry about changing other than the AF button which has a focus confirm light you can see from the corner of your eye.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
krackmonkey posted:Nice comparison shots between the S95 and the X10 here: The x10 looks so much better. The S90/95/100 all seem to have this plastic look. The super fine details are sharp, but medium small contrast just seems far too washed out, but then the actual blacks and whites are too contrasty from the limited DR. The yellows and oranges on the S series always seem sickly to me also. I really wanted to like the S90 I borrowed from a friend, but it just couldn't cut it. The X10 seems to fix all of those problems. The medium details are contrast, there is more bokeh (though I hate how they always focus on things super close, how about some head shots? like real world usage instead of test shots no one else does in real life). And the colors seem 10x more pleasing. The one weirdness is what's with the solid yellow skies on a few of the X10 images?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's about the only way you're going to get any half-decent amount of bokeh on a small sensor. And yes it does happen in real-world situations like taking photos of flowers or whatever. On the s90 at portrait length and it's super slow apertures, sure, but on the X10? It's probably going to give a bit of background blur even with the small sensor, especially with a distant background. I just want to see how much/little.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:The AF on the X10 is actually very fast and still very good in low light. I would say the fastest point and shoot I have ever used. This was also one of the first comments my friends made after picking up the camera. How do you find the viewfinder, and if you use it, are you ok with it not having any info inside? Can you still rely on the AF to work? Can you see the AF light from the corner of your eye while using it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Gravitom posted:Tried out the Fuji X10 at B&H today. A few cons I didn't realize. I imagine you'd get used to the first item. 2nd item, reviews say AF is super fast and accurate, so not sure why you'd use MF (I never do on my X100) as for the third, what I heard some people doing is leaving the AF confirm beep turned on, but on the lowest volume level, which they report makes it so only you can hear unless it's a library or church.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Exmor is the sensor technology in the Nikon D800 that has everyone gushing. too bad it's f4.9 on the long end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Can someone with the RX100 try to take a few portrait headshots at 60mm 80mm and 100mm and show what kind of background blur and separation can be achieved? TIA
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
powderific posted:These aren't great shots, but I did a few shots at different focal lengths for you: http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-shots/24468046_kXTCt2#!i=2003790034&k=rwNRwwQ Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 20:52
|
|
