Is the Fuji X100 Really that Expensive?
by Miserere
Introduction
If you’ve never heard of the Fujifilm X100, let me congratulate you for having just come out of a 6-month coma; I hope your health continues to improve! Check out my mega-article about the X100 with all the information you need to know about it. Now on to today’s article where I want to tackle the #1 criticism levied against this magnesium beauty, to wit, that it costs too damn much. Incidentally, the #2 criticism is that it has a fixed lens, while #3 is that it’s still not in stock.
Fuji took its sweet time until it gave out an MSRP for the X100; in the meantime we internet pundits (and we’re all pundits) amused ourselves throwing numbers around, ranging anywhere from $500 to $2,000 (or €£500 to €£2,000 if you’re on the other side of the Atlantic). My personal expectation was north of $1,500, so $1,200 came as a pleasant surprise. Yes, it’s still a lot of money, but it’s not ridiculous. Or is it?
Price Comparison
Below I’ve compiled a list of mirrorless compact cameras with their lenses and accessory viewfinders, priced in descending order of price. I’ve used prices from the time the camera was released to make the comparison fair (e.g., the Panny G2 and Sammy NX10 can now be bought much cheaper having reached the end of their life cycle). For lenses I’ve tried to use the prime lens that more closely resembles the Fuji’s in field-of-view for the particular sensor size. As for viewfinders, I’ve used EVFs when they were available, or OVFs when not. Take a look:
| Camera | Lens | Viewfinder | Total Price |
| Leica X1 $2,000 |
24mm f/2.8 | Optical $350 |
$2,350 |
| Ricoh GXR $349 |
28mm f/2.5* $699 |
VF-2 961k dots $257 |
$1,305 |
| X100 | 23mm f/2 in body |
Hybrid optical/EVF 1.44 mill. dot in body |
$1,200 |
| Olympus E-P2 $650 |
17mm f/2.8 $265 |
VF-2 1.44 mill. dot $250 |
$1,165 |
| Panasonic G2 $700 |
20mm f/1.7 $350 |
1.44 mill. dot in body |
$1,050 |
| Samsung NX10** $700 |
20mm f/2.8 $350 |
961k dots in body |
$1,050 |
| Panasonic GF2 $500 |
20mm f/1.7 $350 |
LVF1 202k dot $150 |
$1,000 |
| Sony NEX-5 $650 |
16mm f/2.8 sold w/ body |
Optical $150 |
$800 |
| * This is actually 18mm f/2.5 but Ricoh labels GXR lenses with their 35mm-e focal length. ** Price included 18-55mm kit lens; never sold as body only. |
|||
Let’s ignore the stratospherically priced Leica X1 and look at the realistically priced options. Apart from the the dirt cheap Sony NEX-5 combo (which only has an optical viewfinder and few dials), the remaining options are at most $200 cheaper than the Fuji (and the Ricoh is $105 more expensive!). The Olympus E-P2 with EVF is only $35 cheaper! So I ask you: Is the Fuji X100 really that expensive? Bear in mind the X100 has a unique hybrid viewfinder, physical dials for aperture, shutter speed and EV comp, and external metal construction (including dials), which none of the others offer. And for those who care about these things, it sports a leaf shutter and 1/1000s sync speed.
Why All the Complaints?
Let me put on my psychologist hat and attempt to explain what complaining photographers are thinking: The X100 only has one lens, which means it is restricted in its use. Because I can’t fit any of my other 20 lenses on it I won’t be able to use it for everything I photograph, which means I need to buy another camera for all those other needs the X100 can’t fulfil. A camera that is not 100% useful to me must therefore be cheaper to make up for its lack of capability as a do-it-all camera.
A camera, and any product in general, isn’t priced according to how useful it is to everyone, but rather by how useful it is to its intended user. Furthermore, the bottom end of the possible price range (established even before the product is designed) is determined by the cost to produce it while making a minimal profit. You might think the X100 is restricted in its use, but despite that the cost of sourcing materials and putting them together (and paying those who designed the parts and those who put them together) stays the same. You can’t price a camera below its development cost unless you want to go out of business.
But let’s look at this from another point of view; let’s imagine you are the intended user of a camera such as this. If that were the case, you might own a DSLR and 2—3 lenses, but mostly just use one of them, the slightly wide one. You take care of your equipment and don’t replace it as soon as an upgrade is released. You like to keep your photography simple and direct. You spend more time taking pictures than posting on forums; more time leafing through photography books by Magnum photographers than the latest guide to using speedlights. You enjoy street photography and taking candid pictures of your family and friends; because of this you find your noisy and bulky DSLR annoying. You’ve tried out some micro-4/3 cameras at your local store but find them plasticky and lacking in quick-access controls; you also don’t enjoy the EVFs all that much and don’t want to attach optical viewfinders to the camera.
If you were such a photographer, the X100 would be perfect for you. It offers hardware dials, an all-metal external construction, a compact fast lens, near silent operation and very good IQ. You think about how much you paid for your DSLR and high-quality 24mm lens…around $2,000. By comparison the X100 costs only $1,200! You can sell your DSLR plus 2—3 lenses to buy the X100 with the proceeds and still have money left over. Not only that, but you even come out on top because you now have a better camera for your needs. Wow…what a great deal. Thanks Fuji!
This is the photographer that the Fuji X100 is aimed at, and there are many just like him/her. Proof of this is that shortly after offering the X100 for preorder, B&H, Adorama and Amazon US stopped taking preorders. This means they presold all the units they were expecting to receive in their first shipment. A few weeks later all but Amazon started taking preorders again, but those buyers will have to wait for a second shipment (unless Fuji has increased its production capacity to deliver larger first shipments). It seems there are plenty of people willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Conclusion
In closing, I think I’ve shown that the X100 is not the expensive proposition many are making it out to be. For the photographer who wants a well-built, relatively compact, externally simple digital camera with physical dials, and for whom a fast wideangle lens covers most of his/her needs, the X100 is almost cheap, especially if you consider this photographer will probably use the camera for many years before replacing it.
The first units will begin shipping within the next few weeks. By June we should have a good idea of what users think about the X100 and whether it will be a success for Fuji or not. It it is, then we can expect Fuji to come up with more goodies for photographers who appreciate lasting quality at a fair price.
UPDATE March 28th, 2011: It seems that a shortage of stock due to a cease in production after Japan’s recent earthquake has made prices on eBay soar for the available units left on the market. Check out the prices of the Fuji X100 on eBay. Some have sold for twice the MRSP!
Poll
Now that I’ve pontificated a bit, I’d like to get your opinions on the X100′s price, so I’ve got a poll here for you to fill out. Please forward it to your photographer friends; I’d like to get as many people responding as possible.
Would you buy a Fuji X100 camera?
- Yes! (69%, 568 Votes)
- Yes, if it cost $1,000 or less. (22%, 184 Votes)
- Yes, if it had a 30-35mm lens and cost $1,000 or less. (4%, 34 Votes)
- No, never! (4%, 31 Votes)
- Yes, if it had a 30-35mm lens. (1%, 10 Votes)
Total Voters: 827
Loading ...If you replied yes!, you might consider making your purchase through one of our affiliate stores below. You pay the same price but EtL gets a small commission that helps us keep running the site:
- Fuji X100 at Amazon US
- Fuji X100 at Amazon UK
- Fuji X100 at B&H
- Fuji X100 at Adorama
- Fuji X100 at DigitalRev Australia
- Fuji X100 on eBay
Related posts:
- DPR Previews the Fuji X100
- Ian Wilkinson Reviews the Fuji X100, Part 2: Real World Use Shooting Children
- The Best Retirement Gift Ever: Julian Evans Reviews the Fuji X100
- Ian Wilkinson Reviews the Fuji X100: Real World Use Shooting a Wedding
- The Fujifilm X100 Spike: Or Why Everyone Is Interested in this Camera
Tags: APS-C, Digital Rangefinders, Fuji X100, Fujifilm X100, MILC, Photography
You make some great points about the X100 and I’ve never understood people screaming about X camera being too expensive for what it does. If it isn’t the camera for you, don’t buy it. The X100 isn’t a camera I would ever buy, but for street shooters who always had a 35mm on a 35mm it should be great. I hope they enjoy and take lots of great photos to share.
Hi Mis, you forget Ricoh GXR + 28mm f/2.5 module. They are $1049 (EVF +$257). So the pricing is pretty good (not expensive and also not inexpensive).
btw, what do you mean by “if it had a 30-35mm lens.” in poll
Enche
Ah, yes, that dark horse Ricoh; thanks for reminding me, Enche. I’ll add it to the list when I have a moment.
As for the poll question, what I meant was a lens in the 30mm to 35mm range, instead of the 23mm lens the X100 has. For some people, 23mm on APS-C is too wide and that might deter them from purchasing the camera.
Oh ic. the Ricoh 28mm is equivalent to 35mm format, so it is actually around 18.3mm. Ricoh has 50mm f/2.5 macro module too (same price) but no 35mm. Probably Fuji is taking advantage of this hehee.
Yep, you got it. Confusingly, Ricoh is labelling their lenses with 35mm-equiv focal lengths. It makes sense for them because they have different sized sensors in various GXR modules, but it complicates things for people who don’t know what Ricoh is up to.
For some the restriction of one lens could be a challenge, but why not take that challenge.
I’m sure it would be a good excercise for many. And really what is the problem of moving your lazy a.. around a bit, I mean this camera is not for bird or sports photography, but excellent as an allround camera with great image quality and a size that makes it easier to bring along than a DSLR.
I think the comparison with the 4/3 cameras is not fair, I owned a E-P2 and was not really impressed with the image quality. The image quality on the x100 seems to be a lot better (see resent samples on dpreview) and some says it is almost as good as what you get from a Leica x1.
It is so much cheaper than the Leica x1 and also a lot more usable due to the view finder, much better and faster handling, better LCD and so on.
So all in all the price does not bother me.
Be careful in what circles you say that, you might have some fanboys to defend yourself from
I too find the X100 DPR samples of excellent quality, and micro-4/3 is going to have a tough time competing at high ISO. At low ISO, all cameras are good to excellent.
Bearing in mind I’m comparing compact mirrorless cameras with large sensors, the micro-4/3 cameras deserve to be on my list.
He..he
I know what you mean, but I just say my honest opinion.
I have owned and still own numerous cameras from Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon etc. and from the smallest 1/6″ sensor to fullframe DSLRs, so I think I have a pretty good idea what I’m talking about.
Of course most cameras are ok to excellent when plenty of light is available. Even mobile phones can take almost ok pictures *) under these conditions, but “strange” things happens to the image quality when contrast is harsh with very dark and very light parts in the image or if light is sparse.
That is where I see the Pen has a problem (and that surely goes for many other cameras as well). The Pen produces quite noisy images under these conditions even at ISO 200.
From the samples I have seen so far, I think the images from the x100 looks a lot better both at lower and higher ISO and I’m looking forward to reading more real life tests when people start to use the camera. And I’m sure it will have its limitations too, as the perfect camera have never existed and probably never will.
*) I’m just talking about technical image quality – a skilled photographer can of course take great pictures with almost any camera.
I don’t know whether or not I’ll buy one of these or not. The existing configuration/price isn’t a dealbreaker, though a drop in price or a slightly less wide lens might help.
I think I might need to handle one to convince myself the construction, size/weight, etc., and the viewfinder are ‘right’ first.
As an industrial designer, the X100 is quite a deception compared to what it could have been. The first design criteria seems to be nostalgia and that doesn’t touch me at all.
Leica was able to produces a nice and modern re-interpretation of the original (the Walter de’Silva M8) and Fuji, with a clean sheet uses a design language of the 70′s.
One man’s ugly is another man’s beautiful
I don’t think beautiful is the right word.
It sure triggers strong feeling from anyone who have used professional equipment from 30 or 40 years ago.
I would’ve liked to see a modern evolution, like Apple products of today are not copies of Braun products from 30 years ago. But they are inspired by the same principles.
I preordered, hopefully I will get mine sometime in April.
Price here in Norway is $2000 and I think its a steal.
Great design, and yes I think its a beautiful camera, but best of all, the design is fantastic in terms of functionality. No menu diving necessary, no bloody touch screen or other stuff just designed for the sake of designing something new, it got dials, perfect.
Miserere, thank you for your thoughts, interesting read.
Thanks for the kind words, Kim. I suspect you’ll enjoy this camera
I agree, I love the look of this camera! I must have it on looks alone! By the way Marc G. The word you were looking for is disspointment, not deception.
Miserere, thanks for the info all in once place.
I’m one of the many who is waiting for this camera. Hoping it comes to me sooner, rather than later.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this camera. As long-time Leica M user I could never find the rational to purchase an M8. Frankly, I don’t know if I can trust sinking 7K into an M9 body. The viewfinder has always been the real experience of using a Leica M (or any good RF). While the X100 is not a RF camera the direct view finder will be the same experience. From initial reports this camera could be a steal at $1,200 for the rangefinder enthusiast when compared to the M8-9.
I’m hoping the .50 viewfinder in the X100 won’t feel too distant. If you wear glasses and ever had the pleasure us seeing through a .58 Leica M you will appreciate being able to see all the frame lines. This is the camera Leica is probably slapping their foreheads over. It’s the camera they should have been developing.
For the next generation let’s imagine this body just a bit bigger but with a FF sensor…
But the G2 is actually $490 on Amazon right now, or $499 with the 14-42mm kit lens. So that makes the X100 $350 more expensive than the G2. Yes, it has nice dials, a hybrid viewfinder and a better sensor, and I actually find it quite appealing. But of course it also lacks various capabilities of the G2.
Like I said, I used introductory prices. The Panny G2 came out under a year ago; What’s the price of the X100 going to be in 2012? I don’t know! It might still be $1,200, or it might be $900. If the Panny G3 is released in a few months and costs $800 with kit lens while the X100 costs $900, then what? I’m trying to compare like with like: Camera technology is always most expensive when it’s current; 12 months down the line it’s already “old technology”.
For the record, I just bought a G2 body from B&H (to replace my G1) for $349.95!
So cheap that I bought it just to get rid of the G1′s annoying exposure compensation wheel.
I know, Panny is trying to get rid of its old stock before the G3 comes out. It’s a great price for a very good camera (see my review) and I congratulate you on the purchase. I just hope you did the right think and went through EtL’s B&H link
Further on the subject of falling prices, the Samsung NX10 can be found for $450 with the kit lens.
Excellent thoughts. Thanks for posting.
One recommendation. Change the “Lens” heading on your table to read “35mm Equivalent Lens” and post the converted FOVs. For example the X1 and X100 would be approx 35mm. You are mixing up FOVs currently with the Ricoh at its 35mm equiv and the rest at their true FOV.
Chad,
What I’ve done is use the name of the lens as given by the manufacturer. If I set them all to 35mm-e focal lengths people might not readily recognise what lenses I’m talking about. I’m not going to change my entire table just because Ricoh decided to play games with their focal lengths
Hi Miserere,
I have to say that this would be the perfect camera for me, except… Well, I’m not sure what. The more I think about it, I don’t need more than 35mm-equivalent focal length – I’ve owned an Olympus XA long enough to establish that. It is more useful than 50mm-equivalent, since you illustrated precisely the situations I would use it in: indoors, candids, street scenes. You can’t back up far enough at 50mm-equivalent in order to get everyone in. And the pixel density gives a little more reach – that is, I can crop a little bit to get to the focal length that I want. (By my calculations, a little less than 10 megapixels still gets me a nice 8×10.) And wider is what pano-stitching software was built for.
I don’t know, I was thinking it was too inflexible for me, but the other options I’ve been considering cost more or the same, and have drawbacks of their own.
Examples follow:
* E-PL2 w/ 20mm f/1.7 = 600+400 = $1000, and I might buy the viewfinder, so +240, for $1240. Yes, recent sale prices bring that down to 550+350 =$856. [and viewfinder for +200, so, 1056.] But that’s still a lot of money for a system that doesn’t have good high ISO, and no signs that it will catch up with APS-C.**
* Sony A55 w/ Sigma 30mm f/1.4 = 850+440 = $1290.
But that is definitely a lot of money for something that is no smaller than the small DSLR I currently have.
Sure, in the future, the “on sale” prices will drop.
I had been telling myself that it was the ‘accessory uses’ that would make a difference to me. For instance, the use of a remote release for doing panoramas (thus I couldn’t pick the E-PL1 or A33). Or adapted lenses to do tilt-shift. Or designing and building my own portrait prime. Or the fun of doing ‘art’ with a narrower focal length – equivalent to my Yashica TLR. But after some talks with friends, I realized that what matters is the shots I miss. I miss 100% of the shots I don’t have a camera for, a distant second are shots missed due to bad focus or poor ISO performance. (It’s not as though I can’t take my current DSLR and kit lens on vacation, and pick up all the 28-100mm-equivalent shots I need.)
What am I left with?
1. I don’t have a feel for how small it is. Can I fit it in my jacket pocket or not?
2. I don’t know how good the high ISO really is.
3. I don’t know how good the AF is. I’d be using CDAF in low light anyway, so the “not as fast as PDAF” doesn’t apply.
4. I can’t buy it, because it’s sold out on preorder. Which is a double bummer, since it means it probably will never go on sale until it’s replacement is shipped.
On the other hand, a new 24mm f/2 lens on any system is either a pretty huge Sigma ($550) or CaNikon $1200-2000, and not small.
Will
**honestly, I’d happily buy one for $350 refurbed in a year or so, but it doesn’t change the fact that a year will get K-5 like high ISO performance into other cameras, maybe ones that are pretty small, maybe ones I can afford. Even if m4/3 can catch up to, the NEX-5 for instance, I’m still going to want K-5 type performance, which means buying yet another camera to replace. Say no to YAC-ToR!
This is a total tangent, but the only thing standing between Sony and world domination is the lack of pancake primes to go with the NEXs.
So much more eloquant than what i wrote! You summed up my thoughts on this camera perfectly!
You could recently get the Olympus EP1 with 17mm and optical viewfinder for a little over $400 on Amazon. You could get the two lens NX100 kit (which includes the 20mm) with flash for around $400 if you know where to look. Those prices you’re quoting are just not realistic. Of course know other camera can do everything the X100 can. Then again, the X100 can’t do some things that these other cameras can- the number one thing being you’re stuck with just one lens. The X100 is expensive. It’s a niche camera though and there are obviously people who will jump at the chance to pay the price. For what it is I don’t think the price is ridiculous. But expensive? Yes. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of drop in price it has and how fast. I have a feeling it might start dropping fairly quickly but I don’t think the drop will be that great- certainly not like micro four thirds and Samsung. I think this will have to do with the fact that Fuji is not going to be making a huge amount of these cameras. The demand will tend to outstrip the supply. Maybe it’ll get down to $999 by Christmas. It’s a beautiful camera with a great lens- that’s for sure. For some street shooters I think it might be a dream camera.
Ah, I see you’re talking about introductory prices. Well yes, if you look at the price in those terms it doesn’t look nearly as bad.
That’s my point
I’m trying to compare on a level playing field. Maybe by the time the X200 comes out the X100 will be $800, and will be cheap compared to the new Panny G4 or Olympus E-P4, but that wouldn’t be a fair comparison either.
I already ordered mine. I hope to get it soon. It was more than I wanted to pay, but it is almost exactly what I am looking for. I want to replace my Ricoh GR1v. I would have liked a 28 mm equivalent, but I will take what I can get.
Congratulations, Dan!
I hope you went through one of EtL’s store links…
Hello and thanks for your interesting report. The only thing i missed – the Sigmas. Come on.
All the best, titus
I thought the analysis was fine until you got to the intended user bit, where it fell off a cliff.
I’m going to bet that if you’re a dedicated street shooter, you already have a workable solution in place, and aren’t going to burn your ships at the shore as it were, if favor of a new platform. My feel from prowling the internet isn’t that this is being viewed/bought as a primary camera, but as a limited use adjunct. And a lot of people that read ” latest guide to using speedlights” are wetting themselves over a big sensor camera with 1/1000 second native sync speed.
Ha! Off a cliff, eh?
You know what? If you are right and it is sold as an “adjunct”, they will actually sell more units, and I’m all for it.
In my case, I’m a dedicated street shooter, and yes, I have a workable solution in place. However, what I want is a camera for street shooting, not a workable solution. Were the X100 a camera with a 28mm or 30mm lens, I’d be burning my ships right now.
Good post. Am I the X100 demographic? Well let’s take a look…
I have a 5 year old DSLR. I only haul it out these days only for the occasional paying job. I shoot almost everything with two lenses. The other three in my kit bag are almost never used. One of the unused lenses is a 28mm prime that with my APS-C sensor gets me close to the FoV of a 50mm. Why did I buy it? As a smaller walk-around ‘street’ shooting lens for the DSLR. Why doesn’t it get used? Because DSLR’s are noisy, conspicuous, and off-putting to many subjects when shooting street.
I spend most of my time shooting a Voigtländer Bessa R2m (35mm film rangefinder – Leica M system compatible). I shoot street, and portraiture with available light. I use a 35/1.7 for almost everything, but occasionally a 50/2 for closeup portrait work. I love the near silent operation, the camera’s ability to cover action quickly, and how the camera’s small form factor put subjects at ease. I wish I could get closer than 1m to my subject. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t limited by the 36 exp per roll shot capacity – but not as often as you think. Having 36 frames makes you carefully consider each potential photo. I don’t like how the RF patch needs tuning on occasion. The camera has also gone back to the shop for light leaks. And it’s sometimes hit and miss to focus spot-on when shooting wide open.
…
Then one day I discovered the X100.
Same familiar RF form factor. Similar placement aperture and shutter speed controls. Same ability to have what my friend calls ‘the rangefinder invisibility cloak’. Ok so far so good. Prime lens – no problem there. I’m used to shooting primes on my RF. Used to using my feet as my zoom. 35mm FoV – excellent! I started to get more excited. Non-interchangeable. Hmm.. The only reason I mount the 50 on the Bessa is to get a closer portrait at 1m minimum focus, right? X100′s minimum is something like 10cm? I don’t think I care if it’s a permanent lens. I should be able to fill the frame with someone’s face on the X100, if I want. AND there is the hybrid finder! I can switch to EVF to creatively fine focus on close-up portraits!
The X100 should blow my 2006 Canon DSLR out of the water on image quality. And as sample images started to appear online, I studied the high contrast shots to see how well the C/A was controlled – the answer imho is as well as most Canon L glass. I looked for sharpness at the wide-open apertures that I enjoy. The X100 doesn’t seem to be Leica quality, but is it Cosina-Voigtlander quality? Maybe.
On the whole, the X100 seems like the perfect digital replacement for my two year old film Bessa! My hope is to downplay the fact that it IS digital and continue to produce the same type of photos that I have been making with the Bessa.
My concerns are: Slightly short battery life when compared to my DSLR. (and when I used to be limited to 36 exp of film, is the X100′s battery really much of an issue?). Lack of an RF patch to manually focus in optical mode. (I’ve already decided that the X100 will require a shooting workflow that is unique – I’ll probably stay in auto-focus when shooting in OVF mode, and then switch to EVF for my closeup portraiture work). I’m a bit worried about the intangibles – will my photos lose a magic ‘something’ that comes from shooting film? Will a viewfinder full of data (compared to my film RF) be a distraction in the creative process? Time will tell.
Is the X100 worth the $1195USD price? I think so. Many DSLR pro lenses cost more for one lens! I paid nearly that much for my Bessa kit, and I think the X100 will be able to do the same work without film processing. And I would be willing to pay a bit more for a camera with a good lens, cast metal top and base plates, metal controls. And ok I’ll say it – such a sexy look!
I have enough confidence that the X100 will fit my needs that I did in fact sell some gear off to fund it. I sold my entire Bessa kit, and the three Canon EF lenses that were going unused in my DSLR kit. I don’t think I will be sacrificing much if anything. And if I get the urge to shoot film, I still have film cameras, including a vintage Canon QL17 which could pass for the X100′s grandpa.
I think I am the X100 demographic and I’m excited to see what we can create together.
Steve,
Thank you for your extensive comment; from what I’ve read on rangefinder forums, you are the archetype of such streetshooters. I have been very close on a number of occasions to buying a Besa R3A + Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 for my street photography. The reason I haven’t done so is film, which I didn’t think would work for me. For what it’s worth, the price of this kit is $1,050; factor in the cost of film, developing and scanning and you’re over the X100 price tag in no time.
I’ve started selling off my DSLR lenses; I’m finding it harder and harder to do street photography with my DSLR
Thanks Miserere.
I agree. Anchorage, AK is a hard enough place to shoot street (people are skittish and all too aware when you try to capture them on the street) and using a big DSLR just exacerbates things. On the other hand, when I use an RF, the camera is small, friendly and kind of quaint. The camera itself can be way to initiate a conversation with a stranger. Sometimes I’ll get the comment, “Are you shooting actual film in that thing?”
I do like the tonal quality and color of using film. But I am confident that the form factor and design of the X100 will allow me to continue to capture people in natural relaxed settings. I hope that the X100 will do justice to film.
I’m that guy. My primary street-shooting rig is a Leica M-4. My Summicron 35 is pretty much welded on; I’m not even sure it comes off any more.
I’ve been looking for a digital replacement for this setup ever since digital got serious, but haven’t found it. I’m not a label snob; I’ve tried several cameras that came close: the Olympus E-420 was the right size and handled nicely, but a bit noisy (visually, not sound wise) and image quality was OK, but not great. Same for the E-620. The Panasonic G-1 with the new primes is my current substitute, but I don’t love the color.
Cameras with no viewfinder, like the Olympus EP-xx’s, the Panasonic GF-1 and the Leica X1 are not contenders. The add-on viewfinders are OK, but Google “Baldix”, or “Welta” and look at the images. The stick-on-the-top viewfinder pretty much died in 1940.
A Leica M-9 would, or course, be perfect, but I won’t (can’t) spend 7 grand for a camera.
I don’t need to be able to put the camera in my pocket. I have a Canon S-90 for that.
So the X100 looks perfect. I have one one pre-order. A rangefinder-type camera with an APS-C sensor and a 35mm lens. Perfect. Don’t care that it doesn’t zoom. Don’t care that the lens is fixed. Would be happier if it didn’t have video and that made it cheaper.
Regarding cost: My M-4 cost me about $800; the Summicron, $1000, about 12 years ago. So $1200 for the Fuji doesn’t sound that bad. The M4 has no auto-focus, no meter, and you have to put film in it every 36 shots. Primitive.
(Off-topic, but interesting: the Leica set cost $1800. Over 12 years, that’s $150 per year, or $12.50 per month. I don’t think any digital camera will beat that. AND it’s worth more now that when I bought it. If I sell it tomorrow, the per-month cost drops to zero.)
Of course, if the X100 is successful, Fuji will bring out an X200 in a year and my “old” Fuji will be worthless. But I’l still be using it.
Anyway, I’m one of those people for whom the X100 is the perfect camera. Maybe.
Finally, a short rant: I really hate the whole “retro” thing. I don’t even know what it means, really. (I know even Fuji itself has played this up, but you have to expect that marketing folks will use anything they can.) If you build a camera with a viewfinder, you have to put that viewfinder someplace. On the bottom? Nope. On the right side? Nope, because most customers are right-handed, so all the controls will be over there. So you wind up with a layout that looks pretty much like all the hundreds of viewfinder cameras that were produced over the years. Is that “retro”, like a wooden radio? No. It’s the layout that is dictated by a hundred years of camera evolution. Try to think of a different layout that makes more sense.
The use of wheels and dials is dictated by the complaints of photographers who don’t like dealing with layers of menus to make common adjustments.
I suppose you could make it less “retro” if you made it out of black plastic. Would that make it better?
It’s just a rangefinder (type) camera. That’s what they look like.
(For what it’s worth, I have the same problem with people who criticize the Pany G1/G2 series as
having a “pseudo-SLR” shape. Where would they rather have the viewfinder?)
Ok. End of Rant.
Anyway, I’m really looking forward to the arrival of the X100. It won’t change the world, but it might be the camera that lets me leave film forever.
I both feel it is overpriced and i have ordered one. That may sound like a contradiction, but this is because there are no competition, there are no other better priced camera that fills the same specs as the X100.
This discussion on DpReview is also interensting, about the X100 marks a new post digital mindset among photographers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=37924914
I just bought an EP-1 + 17mm + OVF for $450 on Amazon. The same setup would have set you back about $1000 just last year. Other than the pure informational intent of this statement, I wanted to share this to make the point that digital cameras, X100 included, have a rather swift depreciation period. Some cameras are better than others – and I expect X100 to keep its value fairly well compared to its peers. But “compared to its peers” will only slow down the inexorable fact. Truth is, you’ll never be able to sell this for what you’ve bought it for, or more as in the case of Scott’s film Leica. When you look at the total cost of ownership, throughout the life time of the camera – which includes obsolescence and resulting tiny residual values – it’s not worth it. In the same way that it is not worth buying a brand new car, regardless of how good of a value it is compared with other NEW cars.
Furthermore, I’d make the point that buying a body with a (desirable) detachable lens is better, since lenses are holding their value better and they can always be transferred to the next body. X100 on the other hand – the lens is tied to the body and it’s going to be obsolete at the same time with the sensor / body. So why not buy the cheapest body you can find that won’t stand in the way of your shooting?
As an aside, the “prove you’re human” question is a bit antiquated after Watson, don’t ya think?
I have a GF1 as a daily take everywhere camera. The 20mm 1.7 lens has not been removed from the camera since I got it. As a secondary camera to an SLR, the X100 seems like a nice little gem. The only downside I see is that if I upgrade the camera, I can’t keep my glass. I imagine the X100 will be a bit of a classic, and will retain its value well. If I didn’t have the GF1, I would probably be buying one.