[shoplink 19929 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Quesabesde posted a new Fuji X100 field review (Click here to read the google english translation). They posted new image samples you can download and they also noticed quite a few issues during the X100 field test like:
– The X100 does not offer an automatic extension on the screen when operating the focus ring in manual mode.
– Shutter speed is limited to values between 1 / 30 and 1 / 1000 second in Aperture Priority modes
– very slow buffer
Fuji’s future
As you know Fuji is part of the Four Thirds group but has not decided to realize a mirrorless Micro Four Thirds camera. Instead they did develop the fixed lens X100. The real question now is if that camera will really help Fuji financial situation. Many experts out there do believe the camera will be a failure and Fuji should have gone with m43. What do you think? What should Fuji do?
You can preorder the Fuji X100 at Amazon US, Adorama, BHphoto. I didn’t find any European online shop accepting preorders.
130 Responses
`slow buffer’ urgh memories of 2003 Fuji S602 I have in bottom drawer.
“we should not forget that we have a unit with the 0.69 firmware installed”
While the X100 is the current darling of the enthusiast it just isn’t going to sell enough.
To generate real sales you have to get people to buy into a system – more lenses, more attachments and then a better sensor inside a camera which will fit the lenses you already bought. Canon and Nikon are masters at it.
Fuji should actively participate in M4/3, drive the prices of lenses down a little and make them more affordable to suck people into the system.
You want Fuji to make a system? With its own lenses? This is a joke, right?
Making a m43 camera would put them in competition with two companies and will require an entry price.
They might make a interchangeable lens camera in an existing system, why not M43 but IMHO M-Mount APS-C or FF would be more serious an exciting for prosumers and pros.
Just like I said over 2 months ago… Fuji, enjoy your 15 minutes of fame!
This camera is over-hyped, over-priced, under-performed.
Yes, it will sell a few units, but not as many as Fuji thinks, or enough to help Fuji financially.
How many of you people that were raving about this camera months ago, when there was a ‘will you buy’ poll, are actually really going to buy this $1200 FIXED LENS camera?
There is NO reason to buy this camera except for bragging rights! And if you want to brag, you might as well do it right, and get into the used Leica game. Anyone wearing an x100 around their neck has more money than they need. The only thing innovative about this camera is the ovf/evf design. I will give praise where it’s due.
/flame=on 🙂
You are wrong fta, you miss the point completely.
You obviously are a young one. This camera existed and sold like hotcakes before, when it was called Hexar, Canon QL17, Yashica Electro 35 et al.
Ok, I’ll bite 🙂
Maybe I am young? I wish I was 🙂
Let me turn the table around; welcome to 2011, this is a “digital” camera, and there won’t be other knock-offs like the old days of the Hexar, Canon QL17, Yashica Electro 35 et al..
So in todays “digital” era, this camera will fail. Prove me wrong, buy one!
Zaph, I’m really curious as to how I missed the point?
As for the ‘Fuji pre-selling the entire 1st delivery batch’, I am soooo sick of hearing this with other products. If your first batch is only 1000 cameras, of course you are going to sell out your inventory.. sheesh get real. The numbers will only matter in 6 months if you see 100K sold. They might sell the first batch right away, but what about the second. Once all the ‘poser’ photographers buy one, that’s it. done.
sorry about your still-birth Fuji
p.s. No I’m not gripping about Fuji vs m43, what I honestly think killed this camera is the FIXED LENS! Dead from the get go. Even if it had it’s own mount, but was interchangeable lens, that would be a night and day difference. Then I would say, here is a contender to the digital market.
Already pre-ordered one. Since, as I have mentioned Fuji retail partners have already sold their entire first and in many cases second allotment shipments, I’m pretty sure this camera is already a success. Glad the digital age requires oh so many digital crutches for your photography.
Camerageek – Having interchangeable lens is a digital crutch??? I’m glad you said that. I can now officially write you off as a CameraKOOK!
Please enjoy your camera.
P.S. – I heard the pixie dust and unicorn tears that they put into the x100 will make even a picture of bird turd look like a prize winning photograph.
“If your first batch is only 1000 cameras, of course you are going to sell out your inventory.. sheesh get real. The numbers will only matter in 6 months if you see 100K sold.”
>>>All of the numbers you mentioned do not matter. The only important ones are Fuji’s forecasts, which we do not know.
“Yes, it will sell a few units, but not as many as Fuji thinks, or enough to help Fuji financially.”
>>>You sound very confident. How many they think they’ll sell?
“So in todays “digital” era, this camera will fail.”
>>>In today’s digital era every photographer I know misses analog controls. That is in fact the biggest point of this camera. The hybrid VF is coming second.
“This camera is over-hyped, over-priced, under-performed.”
Over-hyped maybe.
Over-priced? Compared to what?
Under-performed? I’ll reserve my judgment for when the actual final product is out.
+1
There’s no market for this. Look at the large sensor bestsellers: Canon/Nikon entry level DSLRs, NEXes and GF2.
And still Fuji’s retail partners has managed to presell the entire 1st delivery production run, and in many case the second one as well! Yeah no market.
That depends only on how many they produced. Not much obviously. However big profit margins on X100 are, it’s not going to put Fuji digital camera division back in black.
I think the camera would sell. Not much – it’s a niche product – but it would sell.
If you look at it from m43 perspective, then yes it is not so interesting package. (But m43 bunch is also biased: it is made of people who have accepted shooting with live view or EVF: OVF is not seen here as something crucial.)
But for many who have to live with the average APS-C optics performance, the package is definitely nice. (And fixed lens actually plays here positive role too: you are guaranteed the lens/body will work with each other smoothly. What is not always the case with interchangeable systems: lens performance differs from one camera model to another.)
If nothing else it would help Fuji’s image, as they have apparently lost the touch with their semi-professional/professional customers: Sn Pro line wasn’t refreshed for many years now.
Aaaand you can start wiping the egg off of your face anytime now.
Let’s look back at the Fujifilm DSLRs. They where Nikon (D)SLRs with Fujifilm sensor and image processing and where quite accepted at the marked, especially the S2pro. Things got bad for Fujifilm, when DSLR prices dropped but they stillt had to buy Nikon bodies, because they didn’t have all the (mechanical) stuff that is needed for a DSLR, like shutter, TTL-viewfinder, AF-modules. Now with mirrorless cameras like MFT the game has changed. All that is needed to develop a great camera is available at Fujifilms. And MFT is still missing a professional camera body. This would be a very nice spot for Fujifilm to place something like a S6pro.
I really like the Fujifilm X100 a lot and applaud Fujifilm for building it. But I also think that it would be good for Fujifilm to invest in MFT.
Fuji should give M4/3 a serious try, they might just find it a successful venture in case the X100 fails to sell in large enough numbers. After all they are one of the founder members of the 4/3 club.
Go on Fuji, don’t be shy, you have the expertise; give it a go!
“Many experts out there do believe the camera will be a failure” … err, overstated maybe? I realise this is 43rumors.com, but c’mon … Many experts also suggest that m43 cameras will never be able to output results good enough due to the smaller sensor size, and that the high ISO performance will also always be substandard – that doesn’t mean they are right, or that you shouldn’t buy an m43 camera.
Zaph, I am not a fanboy if that is what you think. There are REALLY many people that believes it will be a FAILURE. I talked with some of the best bloggers and honestly not a single one thought the X100 could help Fuji. Simply because in these days you do not make money with the camera but with the lenses and acessories. Ask Canon or Nikon how they make the money 😉
It really depends though, if it’s the first part of a longer term strategy, then it doesn’t need to make a huge amount of money for them. How many who buy it would have never even thought about buying a camera from Fuji before? How much has it got the Fuji name out there? People from all over talking about the history and quality of Fuji lens, and “Fuji colors”.
Bloggers have no idea of what the retail enviroment is. If they did, they would not be in their momma’s basement eating hoho with youporn on one screen and you on the other. You want to know if it will sell, talk to retail analysts, not bloggers.
That’s because bodies are sold at the 500$ line. But how’s this for a twitch: you sell the camera for…………………………………………………………………..1000$!
Personally, I’d love one. I think those of us who lust after a digital rangefinder with old fashioned controls would see this as a highly desirable camera.
It’s a shame it’s not a system camera as interchangeable lenses would have been good, but the focal length is fine for many purposes. It’s not trying to be an all things to all people camera.
I currently use a Lumix GF1 and, whilst it is a capable and versatile camera, it is held back by the 4/3 sensor and substandard night performance. I don’t anticipate spending any more money on m4/3, but a system camera with an x100 spec and controls would be perfect.
It will be a failure because you don’t spend 1000 dollars on a camera that only has 1 focal length and no image stabilization. It’s a retarded camera with an innovative viewfinder.
Yeah really! The Konica Hexar was about a grand and had no IS!!!! No AF either, and damn how on Earth Annie Liebowitz managed to exist and take photos with out all those electronic crutches to help her with a Hexar is amazing! Or HCB, Or Gene Smith, Or Eisenstadt, Or Jocab Riis, Or Man Ray, Or Richard Avedon, Or……….
(i.e. pull your head out of your ass son)
I tend to think the X100 will be a flash in the pan, and the small crowd of unique camera buyers will go on to the next status symbol camera (say a follow-on to the Leica titanium special edition M9).
I tend to think Fuji has the problems Olympus suffers from even worse lets see:
Majority of sales coming from p&s cameras which are getting hammered on the low end by smart phones cameras, getting hammered on the high end by mirrorless and DSLR cameras coming down in prices, and too many manufacturers chasing too few customers.
High end body is based on Nikon lens mount, and you need to have significant features for people to buy Fuji instead of Nikon. I really haven’t looked at Nikon, but IIRC, the only trick in the Fuji arsenal was the ability to get wider range of color tonality, but things like high ISO and shutter focusing accuracy did not keep up with the new Nikon models.
I suspect most people want zoom range instead of a fixed lens camera that only shoots at one focal length. Sure a number of people bought the G-F1 with the 20mm lens, and some bought the Olympus E-P1 with the 17mm, but I suspect more people bought the Pany/Oly cameras with zoom lenses. Since the Oly/Pany bodies do have interchangeable lenses, you can put the zoom lens on when it is appropriate and the prime lens when that is appropriate.
I think that it really depends on the sales expectations within Fuji that determines whether or not the X100 is successful or not. Early indications are that it is selling beyond Fuji’s forecast. That makes it a success. I also suspect that Fuji didn’t have really grand expectations for it. What it is doing is getting Fuji’s name out in front of the opinion leaders of the camera market, a place they have not visited in a very long time. They do need to take advantage of this opportunity by following up with some good product, whether m43’s or something else.
By the by, Fuji abandoned the DSLR market years ago, as they could never get a competitive body from Nikon, or anyone else for that matter.
Honestly, I could care less if other people understand the genius of this camera.
And I do not care if and when Fuji goes out of business.
But please, let them make a BLACK version of the X100 before that day comes.
>But please, let them make a BLACK version of the X100 before that day comes.
… OMG yes please! And it even doesn’t have to take photos, it really is not necessary for such a genius of a camera. And please, raise the prize at least to $1500 so that those who buy it would not feel like showing off a cheap junk!
😀
Well, you can buy the Olympus EP2 + lens + VF-2 viewfinder + FL-14 flash for about $1,000 in the U.S.
Panasonic no longer currently offers anything comparable. (GF2 is not in the same league.)
So $1,500 for an all black camera with an APS sensor, built in viewfinder and flash sounds fair to me.
It will take some years for m4/3 to achieve that ISO 12800 quality. Look at the sample inside the Cathedral, it looks better than the ISO 1600 images my G1 delivers!
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0255.jpg
This camera is a good sign. We’ve had enough consumer gadgets and crappy plastic kit zooms etc. This camera reminds me on times when camera’s were still photographer’s tools.
And as a tool, it si overprized for what yu get, its main appael is to emotion, the look and feel of days past. Not as a tool. If you miss the old days, why not go for actual quality, instead of percived quality?
I agree that the X100 is a luxury item. Personally, I am waiting for a MFT body with 2 control dials and/or lenses with aperture ring (like on the XZ-1).
As has been noted previously, I am in two minds about the X100. Great camera. Just it might not sell well.
If fuji made a µ4/3rds camera and lenses then they will have people with existing bodies buying their lenses, they will have people wanting upgrade bodies buying their bodies as well as people buying the camera and lenses at the same time in kits. I believe that a µ4/3rds camera for fuji will sell better because there is a bigger market for it. They could even make a fujicaX mount adaptor.
While the X100 looks awesome, and will probably sell in good numbers, it just might not be the most profitable move. Why couldn’t a µ4/3rds camera have some of the the same control and design innovations?
i done it again and contradicted myself….
It’s not a contradiction.
Looking at the same thing from two different angles and seeing the subject differently is normal. Ask any photographer 😉
P.S. And sign of a flexible mind (aka: you could be good at math).
so your bottomline is, “fuji can make more profit by making the X100 M43”.
Making a m43 body would put them in competition with two companies, which I think they do not really want. Currently they are addressing an empty niche.
The X100 is a good idea. Despite its limited sales potential it puts Fuji back in the “serious camera” game. What makes this camera so appealing to many is its classic control layout and retro look, but it also features some real innovation. The hybrid VF and the a-la-Leica sensor look great. Add to this Fuji’s new on-board PDAF technology and you are looking at a package that should make Olympus and Panasonic drool.
As much as I would like Fuji to join m4/3, I think it would be unrealistic to expect such a move. Much like Olympus, Fuji is a proud imaging corporation with deep roots and is likely to pursue its own way of doing things. The choice of sensor format for the X100 indicates that whenever Fuji decides to delve into EVIL it will use a different mount. It may well be that the X100 had been initially designed to support interchangeable lenses but for one reason or another the plans changed.
Regarding the shutter speed in A mode: Something is lost in translation someplace. According to the x100 brochure the shutter, “(P mode) 1/4 to 1/4000* sec sec. (All other modes) 30 sec to 1/4000* sec … *1/4000sec at F8 or smaller aperture, 1/1000 sec at F2”
30 seconds not 1/30th in A mode. Unless there’s a misprint.
I just dont’t appreciate the idea of hybrid-viewfinder. IMHO a good EVF is more than enough. Get rid of OVF and make it lens-interchangable, then it’s perfect.
There are some genuine compositional advantages to being able to see outside the area that will be photographed. If someone produced an EVF that extended beyond the range of the recorded area of the sensor (which perhaps would require using a smaller area of the sensor?) then I could agree with you. But until then…
+1
X100 is a nice camera, even though I am not going to buy it. The fixed prime lens is restricting the choice of the composition, which is a deal breaker for me.
Regarding the FujiFilm. Financially, they were doing OK even without the X100, http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/investors/ir_events/earnings_presentations
They are flooding the market with nearly identical P&S camera models, which somehow gave them a decent revenue (‘Electronic Imaging’ segment).
They may use X100 as a nice marketing tool, “which offers image quality and expressive power superior to that of digital SLR cameras”, giving customers feeling that they are serious player in digital camera market.
Their Fujinon subgroup is more focused at the moment on the specialized lenses, fixed for P&S and interchangeable for TV & security cameras, which gives little hope of them going quickly to the regular ILC market.
I don’t get the overpriced discussion on the x100….. What does a PL2 body with pancake and digital viewfinder cost in total (catalogue price)? I really think the appearance of the x100 is more high end than the PL2. Let’s not talk about the ugly external viewfinder on top of the camera……
If there will be no rumors in the near future for a newer x100 version with interchangable lenssytem, I think this x100 can be a succes.
If the logic of the original poster is correct, then ANY camera that isnt an ILC will be a failure. I think that the X100 may be a success for Fuji partly because it is NOT an m43, i.e. because it has features that no m43 has and probably never will get.
The huge positive interest that the X100 has generated on the internet clearly shows that there are customers for this camera, if only it delivers on its promises.
I would buy one in an instant if I could afford it.
The X100 will not be a failure, however, it will also not support the Fujifilm camera division. Fuji knows this and will continue to develop. They have already stated that this X100 is just one of several X-series cameras they intend to produce. If Oly and Panny had gotten off their ass and built a m43 rangefinder-esq high-end camera with built-in EVF I would have bought one immediately. Since neither Oly and Panny stepped up to the plate I pre-ordered the X100, Fuji has come the closest so far to my ideal compact. I would still seriouly look at a Panny DMC-L1 in m43 clothes if they get around to making one.
+1
-100
+101
LOL.
@ Tobias W
This is a very SERIOUS discussion…. ;-p
There won’t be any DMC-LC1/DMC-L1-like (I own both) m43 camera. This was a (slightly modified) Leica design and the collaboration between Leica and Panasonic is over (that is obvious from the current design of Panasonic m43 cameras).
+1
I have been impressed with Fuji for some time.
There sensor technology is excellent, and their cameras often have innovative, industry leading features, such as mega zoom and high speed photography on fairly mainstream cameras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
I do believe as others have stated, at such a high price, a high quality camera should have had interchangeable lens features.
I would prefer the camera to be a m4/3 based design with a GH1-2 sized sensor for several reasons
I believe m4/3 is the future.
There are already a choice of lenses in the m4/3 format, some of which offer image stabilization, offsetting one of the features not presently on the camera.
The smaller size of the lenses, particularly the fixed focal length lenses, fit nicely on a range finder type camera.
The option to placing a larger zoom improves the versatility of the camera.
Also, I believe if the “smaller” camera manufactures are going to achieve any kind of success against the marketing and manufacturing giants of Canon and Nikon, then they are going to have to work together.
But the smaller companies cannot wait. The larger companies are seeing their market share being nibbled at. It is not whether or not Canon and Nikon will move into the m4/3 market; it is a question of when. The same cost incentives that drove the development of APS sized sensors drive the development of m4/3 sensors.
Consumers look and see that the supposed loss of image quality the smaller sensors cause and they can see for themselves that for the most part the differences are comparatively minor, and for those who do see a difference, many realize that most of the short fallings can be fixed with some post processing. Only the fussiest will be dissatisfied, but they never satisfied anyways. (Which is a good thing since it keeps standards high).
Good luck Fuji.
Regarding the lack of OIS:
From the queasbesde preview:
“However, the focus of the lens combined with good ergonomics and the absence of a mirror to hit with each shot will allow us to get shots without camera shake up to 1/15 of a second.”
Add that with the viewfinder, the head/eye becomes the “3rd arm” that helps steadying the camera so that the 1/15 second shutter speed will be quite realistic.
Cameras with OIS can often go to significantly longer shutter speeds, but to my experience 1/15 is the practical limit before motion blur of the subject becomes too strong.
“Many experts out there do believe the camera will be a failure and Fuji should have gone with m43.”
Some experts. That camera will be a huge commercial success within the limits of that particular market. Anybody looking for serious street photography camera will get the X100. Basically, the X100 will kill Leica’s X1.
I am already looking to put aside money for this beauty (and I’m far from being a professional photographer, I do this for fun on my own time).
As you say, the problem is not holding the camera still but getting the subject to stay still. No matter how many times I shout at my friends “For God’s SAKE will you stop fidgeting and FIX that bloody smile for just ONE FIFTEENTH OF SECOND PLEASE!!!” they almost never do. I blame the vodka.
Let’s get real for a moment. Fujifilm’s electronic imaging sales for the current fiscal year might hit 120b yen. How many X100’s would Fujifilm have to sell in a year to change that number by anything close to 10%? The current answer is ~150,000. But in terms of the overall company, even that would amount to only about a .05% increase in overall company sales.
Put simply, the X100 might produce modestly meaningful results for the digital imaging group (assuming, of course, that they’re producing it at a good profit), but it impacts the overall company almost nil. This is what we called in Silicon Valley the Walking Dead. The net operating income the imaging group is producing is about 4% overall, which is substantially less than a company Fujifilm’s size should be producing, and less than the need for R&D funding. The imaging group is about 6b yen short of operating profit a quarter from where it should be, in my judgment.
Note that Fujifilm reported that sales are up in digital imaging, mostly due to selling into the BRICs. In other words, they weren’t able to make any headway in the US, Europe, or Asia. They looked for low-hanging fruit outside the developed world to produce the numbers they did.
The X100 may give digital imaging a bit of breathing room, but we’re talking about a group that is producing less than 4% of the company’s revenues, and doing so with low margins. It’ll take a lot more than an X100 for digital imaging to regain luster overall in the company and get the attention and investment it probably needs.
I doubt Fuji is so deluded as to think that the X100 will create any measurable profit.
The point seems to be about establishing credibility, garnering attention and free advertising gained from the hype around the X100.
It’s obviously designed to test the waters in regards to future products and technology.
You beat me to the buzzer.
Flagship cameras are rarely profitable on their own.
@ erik k:
“I doubt Fuji is so deluded as to think that the X100 will create any measurable profit.”
You can BET that Fuji has made several well founded NPV calculations to make sure that it is Positive NPV (Net Present Value) project. Any serious company does that these days.
@ Thom Hogan:
“Note that Fujifilm reported that sales are up in digital imaging, mostly due to selling into the BRICs. In other words, they weren’t able to make any headway in the US, Europe, or Asia.”
Not sure if you’re aware, but BRIC includes India and China, which are both very large ASIAN countries. Your sentence above may be correct if you leave out the word Asia.
I do agree with your assesment that one camera with a lot of attention will not change the game for Fujifilm in the long run. This is a Leica X1 killer at most, and might sell to some nostalgic photographers as well. But what’s the development path towards long-term profitability?
Any large company, probably would at least figured out pay back period already (NPV or not that’s a question) before they say the project is a go, or they’d be on a suicidal mission. Given Fuji is surprised with the response, I’d say it’s already getting more sales units than they expected. How much is the required rate of return is entirely subjective with only hurdle rate to mark the lower limit. Some companies is okay with 10% return and some can’t tolerate that. It also has to do whether the company is publicly traded or not (equity is more expensive than debt).
> Given Fuji is surprised with the response
Doesn’t anyone else find a problem with that statement? I actually find many problems with it.
> You can BET that Fuji has made several well founded NPV calculations to make sure that it is Positive NPV (Net Present Value) project.
I didn’t say it was profitable. But those same bean counters that did the NPV calc also would have done an ROI calculation ;~). The question any large company faces is that if they have X dollars (yen) to invest in something, where in the company is the best place to put that? Given what I’ve seen of Fujifilm’s financials, I doubt it is the X100.
Indeed, I made the BRIC comment for a reason: Fujfilm seems to have made the decision that they couldn’t compete in the US/Europe markets that make up two-thirds of all camera sales, so they looked for somewhere that was being underserved to try to dump cameras into. That tactic only works for a short while. Ultimately, you run out of “unserved markets” because once it becomes clear that sales are possible there the big boys come running, too. So if you can’t compete in the US/Europe, you’re not going to be able to hold serve in the BRICs.
> The point seems to be about establishing credibility, garnering attention and free advertising gained from the hype around the X100.
Okay. But then that credibility is turned around to sell what? 300EXRs? And exactly how do you do that? The X100 doesn’t have the typical Fujifilm sensor tech, lens tech, UI, or almost anything else other than the Fujifilm name on it.
If you’re going to do a flagship camera, then you try to make sure you have trickle down technologies that can imbue the whole line with bits and pieces of the flagship. That’s going to be difficult for Fujifilm to pull off. Indeed, a lot of what they’ve been doing looks like short alleys with dead ends in them (SR, EXR, etc.).
Regardless of their motivations, intentions or profits (or lack of profits) Fuji is putting into production a camera with no peers, no competitors. A camera that much bigger companies have failed to deliver or to anticipate a desire for.
While it may in fact only appeal to a select niche market, the intentions and philosophy of it’s design and purpose are truly admirable. In my opinion.
It seems to be the rare product that defies the bean counters and captures the imagination and excitement of a group of consumers/photographers.
For many photographers, the feel and design of the camera you hold in your hands and against your face is an important part of the spirit and romance of photography. 99% of cameras in existence I have no desire to touch or carry regardless of the quality of the lens or the final product.
If and I do say if, the X100 can produce a quality photograph, then it could be this type of camera/product based on its apparent features and design.
+1 (Well stated)
The only part of the X100 that seems to have “no peer” is the viewfinder arrangement. We’ve got a number of large sensor, fixed lens compacts now. And I would not say that the camera has “no competitors.” Not unless you want to define a really, really narrow niche.
This isn’t to say that the X100 won’t sell. It will sell much like the fixed lens film compacts did (Nikon, Minolta, etc.). To a smallish group of dedicated shooters who appreciate manual control and high quality in a small camera. To one or two people at each camera store. But that’s so far outside of mainstream, that it really doesn’t help Fujifilm overall, which was my point. Fujifilm overall is not a small company, nor is it one focused on niches. Thus, something like the X100 is tolerated in the company, not a strategic thrust of the company.
People seem to think that the X100 gives Fujifilm its Mojo back. I don’t. It’s another in a long string of dead-ends, I think. To be successful in the camera business now you need million unit babies, and multiples of that. The X100 doesn’t do anything that helps spur on those million unit babies. It doesn’t use the same tech as anything in the rest of their lineup.
@ Thom
Your philosophy is why there are so many uninteresting products on the market today. Everyone is making a Me2 product, because every one of those executives thinks the same way, make the same product. What happened is, all they did was making their own product an undifferentiated commodity, easily replaceable and no brand loyalty. It all comes down to: how cheap we can make this product…. And to consumers it is, I’ll buy which brand which sells it the lowest price.
That is not niche market strategy. That’s how American businesses lost their market shares.
If you can do a proper NPV or ROI, and aware of the risk being taken, why not take a bold step on the marketing front? NPV already factors in required rate of return, so anything with a NPV >= 0 is a go project. What’s wrong with merely satisfy the required rate of return. What’s wrong with only sold one or two cameras per shop?
Logistics is very important for niche as well, but it doesn’t mean x100 should be found in every Walmart or Costco so it can be sold in hundreds of units per shop. In fact, niche market products usually are sold in well-selected boutiques which are picked as exclusive dealers by their expertise in the field, not by foot traffic count.
That’s what Apple did. If it doesn’t sound familiar to you already. They used to have CompUSA to be the exclusive dealer when Jobs came back to turn the then failing company around, but once their financial condition got stabilized, they opened their own boutique shops to guarantee a certain standard of service to make sure Apple products are above every one else’s in consumers’ mind. This is niche strategy. Apple’s sales volume will never surpass that of a PC maker, but it doesn’t matter anyways.
To pay 1000$ for a sub speced camera (1/1000 in A mode, slow buffer) just in order to have a super retro design (which has no advantage for photography), is beyond me.
Yes, this camera is a failure.
I’m not sure you’re talking about the same camera. Seriously.
First of all, shutter speeds range from 30 sec. to 1/4000 sec.
And most importantly, that camera will handle better than any other camera that size and format as every single setting can be controlled by a dedicated dial or button. This is basically why so many people are that excited about the retro design as the camera will handle like SLRs used to handle 35 years ago. For plain old photography, this camera will handle better than any other camera of its class. Aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation(!) and mode can quickly be set mechanically on the body. The shutter release button even features a slot for a cable release!
And I haven’t even started about the optical viewfinder with electronic overlay, the silent shutter noise (you won’t hear it) and the general build quality of this camera.
You clearly don’t seem to know anything at all about this camera or you wouldn’t make these statements.
While I would tend to agree with you and will probably be purchasing this camera myself, it looks like he’s right about the 1/1000 in A mode (cf the article linked in the post).
@Tobias: Yes, I’m not sure we’re talking about the same camera. As far as I know, the shutter speed is not constant throughout all values of aperture. 1/4000 at f/8, 1/1000 at f/2
This is mentioned in LeicaRumors:
http://leicarumors.com/2011/02/15/fuji-x100-vs-leica-x1-specs-comparison.aspx/
>> 1/1000 in A mode
> First of all, shutter speeds range from 30 sec. to 1/4000 sec.
f8 and smaller – 1/4000. wider than f8 – 1/1000.
I have read that it is a mechanical limitation of the leaf shutter.
X100 has the built-in ND filter for the purpose of compensating for that. (Though it has to be activated manually.)
Correct. Frankly, getting 1/4000 at f/8 from a leaf shutter is quite impressive.
It would be nice to see a camera with the Leica M-mount employing the viewfinder technology on the X100, if it could be made compatible with existing M-mount lenses. It’s difficult to imagine the X100 having significant sales. It could appeal as a “walk around camera” for wealthier photographers who don’t want to lug heavy dslr gear around all the time, but it’s too expensive for the average consumer. It would be more appealing with a zoom or tri-focal type lens (equivalent to the 28-35-50mm lens Leica used to make.
It is not a system for the average consumer, and 1200USD is well within the means of any working pro. We spend more than that for a lens or accessories or equipment rentals in one year.
warning: quesabesde test was done using a pre production model (firmware was 0.69)
IMO the X100 is a extremely desireable camera, but also quite expensive for what you get. I expect that a lot of people will want one, quite a few will buy one, but not enough to make it a huge financial success.
The X100 lacks two features that most people want today, a zoom lens and image stabilisation. Even a 2x zoom (e.g 35-70mm) would have made the camera much more versatile. Still, the X100 is interesting and I hope Fuji will sell enough to make it worthwhile.
As for MFT-cameras from Fuji. I don’t believe the Fuji designers are good enough to compete with Panasonic. I haven’t seen a really excellent Fuji camera yet (with the possible exception of the X100). The sensors are good, but the cameras don’t measure up too well. One example is the F30/F31 with a really good sensor, but the cameras were just average P&S models with poor menu systems and a limited feature set. Much the same can be said avbout the dSLRs (excellent sensors, good JPGs, below average cameras) and the early superzooms with Super CCD sensors.
So, maybe Fuji should concentrate more on the sensors and forget cameras unless the X100-designer(s) get the resources to design more competititve models.
Thom Hogan.
Yes Fuji imaging is small compared to all Fuji group. And X100 can never in itself make a huge impact on the bottom line of the Fuji group. So why bother ? Maybe because they are content with a “nice little earner”. Maybe because niche markets are aesier to be profitable in. And maybe because the X100 is aimed to bolster the overall prestige of the Fuji brand.
To me it makes sense.
Your own argument about the BRIC countries and “the lowest hanging fruits” confirms that you cannot win if you only have products in the low-end segment.
You die if the only sales argument you have is low price.
> Nice little earner. Profitable niches.
I’ll repeat, Fujifilm is a 2 trillion yen a year company. It’s huge. Having one small product that sells well to a handful of customers that are not the typical customer for the rest of their digital lineup does them little good. It’s about ROI, not GPM. I’m glad Fujifilm did the camera, but I’m not deluded into thinking that it is going to change Fujifilm Imaging’s fortunes one iota.
> Cannot win if you only have products in the low-end segment.
I didn’t say that (or think that). The reason to run to BRICs is to dump all those US$100-200 cameras you can’t sell in the big countries. In other words, you’re not competitive (for whatever reason). The X100 does nothing that makes Fujifilm “more competitive.” The dealer base has shrunk in the big markets and most of the support system pulled out or let go, so Fujifilm is 100% reliant on people ordering the X100 based upon the Internet rather than discovering it on a dealer’s shelf. For my business, that’s fine. For Fujifilm’s, that’s a big problem which they’ll try to fix by advertising (which will lower GPM and ROI).
People keep saying that the X100 represents Fujifilm’s re-entry back into serious cameras. In the sense that they made another low-volume serious camera, yes. In the sense that they’ll rebuild their distribution and support system to the levels they had at the start of the DSLR craze, no. I see no evidence that they’re doing anything like that. No dealer support means no dealer sales in the US.
I think Fuji has a passion for photography, and that’s why they keep making these “failures” by Thom’s definition.
A company which still has the passion to serve the industry they’re in is a rare animal nowadays. It’s not always about the bottom line.
Whether or not the camera is a commercial success relies too much on unknowns for us to determine (development costs, etc.). But as a product, it has already been a success at generating buzz which is on of the most coveted aspect of marketing. It did this through a combination of style, common sense design, and innovation. As for it’s success as a tool, that remains to be seen. It is definitely not a do everything camera, but it has found a niche that had been neglected by most of the digital cameras. Photographers continued to shoot rangefinders long after SLR’s dominated the market because as a tool it afforded them a certain “way” of working that SLRs did not. Film rangefinder cameras have seen a resurgence over the past few years because photographers were re-discovering this way of working. In the digital realm, tools to meet this way of working had been largely absent other than the underperforming and absurdly overpriced Leica cameras, until the GF1 fitted with an EVF arrived. But even this did not fully fit the model. The X100 seems to have not only brought all the needed pieced into place, but has added a few thoughtfully designed premiums that could only be done digitally. It is this that has garnered the X100 so much praise ,and for people like myself, so much relief that someone has finally made a tool like this.
The X100 is directed towards a niche within a niche (fixed lens enthusiasts within the rangefinder crowd). It will be a financial failure as far as the corporation’s bottom line is concerned. It’s been great for raising Fuji’s profile among enthusiasts and generating excitement among the RFF crowd, etc., and it looks to be a wonderful implementation of new viewfinder technology, but as has been stated it’s not the cornerstone of a viable business model.
Relaunching this thing with changeable lens will put them in direct competition with Sony NEX, the 4/3rds group, Samsung and even Ricoh’s GXR. I don’t believe Fuji has the war-chest to successfully outmarket Sony, Olympus and Panasonic for mass consumer sales. If they’re going for the M9 crowd, they’ll need to raise their prices in order to subsist on high margin/low volume. Would you buy an interchangeable lens X200 if it cost $3500-$4500? (roughly half the price of a M9). Really?
The X100 will not “kill” the X1. The X1 is a luxury product geared towards rich, brand-conscious consumers. The fact that it’s a very good compact is frankly secondary. It’s not why Leica made it. It’s a lifestyle product and in this regard, “Leica” has far more cache than “Fuji.”
I say all this as Leica shooter myself. 🙂
Seriously, classic camera/rangefinder enthusiasts are a very small segment of the market. We’re useful for generating buzz (EP1, X100), but we don’t mean much in terms of sales. Even Olympus and Panasonic aren’t marketing to us these days (the EPL1/s/2 and GF2 are great cameras, but decidedly mass market in terms of price & features).
I wish it were otherwise, but I don’t see any evidence to the contrary.
The slow buffer issue should most likely be attributed to the fact it is using pre-production firmware, and will most likely be improved by the time production units get in the hands of reviewers. As far as those thinking the X100 will be a failure? They need to stop jacking off in front of their computers while wearing their nanny’s panties and chanting “Micro 4/3rds is Best! Micro 4/3rds is Best!”
The truth is everywhere globally is already sold out of their entire first, and in larger markets, 2nd and 3rd schedule shipments! This camera will be impossible to get your hands on without an early preorder.
quote “hey need to stop jacking off in front of their computers while wearing their nanny’s panties and chanting “Micro 4/3rds is Best! Micro 4/3rds is Best!”
Now that is a bit harsh and juvenile.
Here is what I propose:
I will offer only good thoughts and wishes. I only hope for the best for Fuji. I think 43Rumors should do a “follow-up” in 6 months after official release date.
I will gladly apologize publicly if the x100 is a success.
Deal
> This camera will be impossible to get your hands on without an early preorder.
Did Fuji disclosed how much units they plan to produce?
For that kind of product, Fuji is interested in keeping demand high – to keep the price high. And easiest way to keep the demand high is to produce/ship less units.
> Micro 4/3rds is Best!
Yeah, m43 is the best. At this moment of time. Got problem with it? 😉
But by the end of the year, I will not be surprised if Sony NEX outdoes the m43. All it would take for Sony is to release update to the NEX-3 and couple of decent lenses (Zeiss and Sigma could help) – and Oly/Pannay to release another wave of generic updates. The point being: it much easier for Sony to accomplish its goal, while Oly/Pannay, finding themselves in the unusual to them market leader position, seem to be disoriented and still trying to understand who the hell buys the m43 cameras???
All I care about is Fuji stops discontinuing anymore film. Fuji is no sigma so I doubt even this camera will fail with them, it already got more press than anything else they’ve released in years. I use my Natura Classica all the time, beats this camera in IQ and isnt that what’s important? Or is it having toys?
Cool by me
That seems fair. I myself think the camera will do very well. Of course Once I actually use it I will be confirmed in my opinion or sadly disappointed. What irks me most are all the gear headed pixel peepers who spend far too much time looking at images at 400-800% on screen rather than actually, you know , shooting, and basing their opinions on images that most likely do not represent what the final output will look like on a final production version.
I just want them to keep making Neopan ACROS.
Yes. I’d hate if they discontinued 400H, 400X or Provia 100F in 120.
> Fujifilm stops discontinuing any more film
The last few year’s worth of financial statements aren’t going to make you happy. Film was Fujifilm’s cash cow once, but as sales plummeted, they started making writeoffs on the expense side. The sales line has continued to shrink, and even though they’ve consolidated most of their efforts to restrain costs, the cow is decidedly lean now. The only way left to deal with declining sales is to consolidate products.
The sad thing is that two companies–Fujifilm and Kodak–once owned the world’s notion of “imaging.” They were marketing juggernauts. They both had early and advanced forays into digital imaging. And they both now are shells of their former selves and no longer have the image side of things as the largest part of their business. Indeed, both fumbled things so badly that actual digital camera sales provide no real bottom line help to either company. None.
that camera is worth only 500 bucks, thats all i would pay for something that lacks so many features of todays digital cameras, yup 500 bucks just for the look. put an interchangeable lens on it and give me 1080p 24/60p video and ill give you 2k!
well, i have this cmeraa too~~~~ i bought it in taiwan but i’ve run out of film and i cant get to find the film here .do u know where can i get it? thanks
That’s too early to determine a product fail or not in the state. But no doubt, Fujifilm has lost her charm since she stop producing DSLR after S5Pro and more deadly, lack of significant technology advancement after F31 and so on. In fact, the image quality of EXR SuperCCD is really dump that only the noise reduction looks great. The images produced are full of JPEG compression artifact that you should not zoom into 100% for pixel peeping. This situation keeps bothering Fujifilm on the latest 550 EXR. May be Fujifilm is time to use other manufacturer’s sensor to make their future camera.
Thanks for sharing. This tells me you are just a gear head BTW
Well. Whatever you like to said. I used to own a E550 and I still think that it is one of the best product in that period. Fujifilm used to be one of the topest image quality besides of Nikon, Canon and Sony. That’s why it gain quite a lot of support from the users 5 years ago. You really can’t beat the true that most of the people bought Fujifilm for her image quality in the past. Now you have to pay much more to have a DSLR equivalent camera. That means less people getting happy from this brand.
Just to remember, compact DC is still quite profitable if you can have enough market share. And that’s what Fujifilm failure to maintain it.
Failure…ha.ha
You just wait and see. I think it will be a huge succes.
Image quality looks very good and better than the output from 4/3 cameras.
+1
Well, if anybody else wants to make a camera with an APS sensor, built in viewfinder, built in flash, video capable in a relatively robust compact body then by all means please make it.
As it will stand as of March 2011, there will be only one. The Fuji X100.
That is in no way a failure.
This is the first seriously insightful discussion I’ve read on this camera and I’m glad to see there are others out there who can see beyond the “limited” spec range of the X100 for what it is intended to be. This is a camera designed to be an extension of the photographer’s hands.
Back in the days before digital, without any control over film technologies or the need for efficient data transport, camera makers used to focus ENTIRELY on lens design and user interface (ergonomics). It was understood by most serious photographers that the physical interface of the tool was all that mattered besides having a decent lens. Add durability into the equation and you have the 3 primary reasons that Leica has survived into this modern era.
Camera makers today, for the most part, have moved away from designing camera interfaces which allow the photographer to simply shoot relying on instinct and muscle memory. What we mostly have today are pocket computers with powerful technologies that are truly amazing imaging devices with abysmal interfaces. Even the best of the menu designs still requires looking away from your subject and disengaging yourself from the scene you’re photographing. They used to design machines for the hands that could disappear from the forefront of the photographer’s consciousness. Now, most camera makers are electronics companies. In fact, many of the big players now were electronics companies long before they considered producing tools for photographers.
I have always loved the older mechanical cameras for their ease of use and durability. I own many of these cameras… too many if you ask my friends. But they all offer a different style of working. Rolleiflex TLRs are spectacular tools for carefully composing art images on the focus screen and also wonderful stealth cameras for street photography but they fall seriously short for action or macro photography. I absolutely love the Leica design for walking around but they are just insanely expensive and still rather handicapped for any close up work.
One of my favorite small cameras of all time was the Canonet QL17 GIII with a fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens. It’s almost exactly the size of the Panasonic GF1 with almost exactly the same view but with a rangefinder and manual controls. Still, it can’t shoot close, small objects and getting decent scans from 35mm film has become quite a hassle when you look at the results of digital now. I was drawn to the GF1 because it seemed to marry some of the form factor of my old Canonet with more efficient production workflow.
I love all the controls on the GF1 and how I could even program many of the menu settings to come up quickly with a touch of one button. It really is one of the best interfaces I’ve found on a digital camera but it is still very digital. I don’t feel connected to the device, it doesn’t disappear from my conscious thought process. I feel rather foolish holding a camera out 18″ from my face. It’s distracting in the moment to reassign a control dial to adjust shutter speed or aperture… no matter how easy the process, shared buttons just don’t work well with muscle memory. I can’t change the settings without looking at the screen for confirmation.
The new GF2 seems to have completely gone back to fully digital interface with its touchscreen. So much for ergonomics. There will be no hope of changing a setting without specifically searching for it in a menu and setting it on the screen. This really shows Panasonic as an electronics company, not a camera maker.
All of this adds up to the fact that cameras requiring more operator attention distract the photographer from focusing full attention on the scene. It doesn’t matter if the scene is static or moving… the more you have to look away to set the controls, the less connected you are to truly SEEING what’s in front of you.
Think of a surgeon. A surgeon trains for many years to operate almost without looking. They often must “see” without their eyes, relying only on experience and muscle memory. The hands know exactly where everything is. The tools of the trade are designed for maximum balance and comfort in the hand. They are truly extensions of the hands. Now imagine a surgeon operating on your heart through a touch screen control interface and a video camera. I’m sure it can be done and I know it often is… but it wouldn’t be my first choice if I were on the table.
Switching gears now to talk about interchangeable lenses. To carry the surgical idea over, think about how there is a separate tool for every slightly different function in the operating room. Imagine if scalpels were like ExactoKnives, requiring the surgeon to unscrew the blade from the handle, find the desired blade on a tray to the side, then reattach the new blade and check the balance before making the next cut. Even if time is not a concern, the shift in focus of attention would be quite distracting.
I enjoy working with interchangeable lenses often, but every time I switch lenses, I have to shift my thinking to a different angle of view. I often go out with one fixed lens camera just so that I can be free of the myriad choices available with my SLR. I find it much simpler, calming, focusing… it allows me to get into the “zone” faster and stay in it longer because I’m not thinking about wether the shot would be better with this lens or that other one. I simply focus on making great images with the tool I’ve chosen for the day.
As far as design goes, fixed lens cameras are specifically designed to serve a certain function incredibly well. Once you throw an interchangeable system into the mix, the entire system must be designed with compromises and concessions to allow for more universal function. One of those concessions is size, another might be balance or control layout. Zoom lenses sacrifice sharpness and contrast for convenience. Fast primes are usually heavier and limited in focal length. Compact cameras allow for smaller lenses but have smaller sensors and lose some creative control of depth of field and high ISO noise performance. A 4×5 film camera offers incredible flexibility with a huge range of lenses, focus plane and perspective controls, incredible detail and clarity for monstrous prints… all at the expense of speed of operation and easy carrying.
The point is, every piece of equipment in photography requires compromise. If you do only one thing in your photography, then one camera works great. If not, you will likely have multiple tools for specific functions. There’s really no such thing as one camera (or camera system) that does everything equally well. There’s a lot to be said for a camera that try to do one thing better than anything else. The X100 is designed to do what it does incredible well without requiring the user to think much about how to work it. It’s a surgeon’s tool much like Leicas and Rolleiflexes… but it is not likely the only tool in the bag. If you’re looking for one camera to serve all your needs, the X100 is most likely not it. But you’re like me, and you enjoy setting out with the intention to focus on one style of image making for the day, this will probably be a wonderful camera for you.
As for the financial success of the X100… The reality of today’s market is that only a small percentage of the camera buyers are genuinely interested in using tools that disappear in the hand. The vast majority of camera buyers are snap shooters and photo enthusiasts who most likely don’t have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of photography. They are not interested in ergonomic manual controls because they mostly use full-auto modes. The photographers who really know what they are doing and want to connect with the scene, have been waiting for a return to efficient, elegant PHYSICAL camera design and will rejoice at the X100 for its simple MECHANICAL-esque interface. There’s also a very large group of aspiring photographers that drool over the Leica gear every chance they get but simply can’t afford it. As it stands, the X100 is the only tool in the market that even comes close to offering the ergonomics of Leica with high quality digital results. Can we really compare the X100 to a Leica M9 with a 35mm Sumicron f/2.0? Maybe not… But the Leica kit is $10,000. You do the math.
+1+ – How refreshing it is to read a well considered argument without trash talk attached. Great post, Neil!
Well said Neil.
Thank you. Excellent.
Case closed (nice read Neil).
Well put Neil.
“The reality of today’s market is that only a small percentage of the camera buyers are genuinely interested in using tools that disappear in the hand.”
I’m not sure that the GF2 touchscreen fits into that category though – given that it has a different intended user. To someone who has been raised with touch-screen phones, a touch-screen camera is likely *more* intuitive than a more mechanical one. With pretty much everything these days being button-based, or screen based (radios, TVs, computers, exercise equipment, etc) young people’s muscle memory is different. They can likely intuitively remember the part of the screen that a particular control is on, and trigger/set that without too much thought, staying focused on the scene shown in the LCD.
I was raised with mechanical things until probably around 15, so I’m very much looking forward to the X100.
I think the Fujifilm X100 will sell well. It’s not a mass market product, but for the market it caters, it will do well. It is more affordable (and better?) than the Leica X1, and it is more useful than the Ricoh GR-D series.
It’s hardly a product which will determine Fujifilm’s future, though, as it is not a volume product.
personally i think it’s an extremely desirable camera and I’ll definitely get one this year. i think they’ve made 99% of their design choices right.
1, it’s meant for as a secondary camera for pros, who owns a system camera but want something portable with high IQ for street photography etc. yeah m43 is nice, but if you compare the current ones with x100, x100 is a clear winner. larger sensor with much better high ISO performance, a very high quality lens with a classic focal length, silent leaf shutter(if you’ve used m43 or nex you’ll know what i mean), built in ND, and most of all, the awesome hybrid viewfinder! it’s my camera of dream for many years
2, price wise, yes it’s a bit pricey. but people spent $1,000 just for the nokton f0.95 lens…which i think is not so usable until f2.0 anyways.
3, many people argue m43 is the future. yeah i agree to some extent, and i personally own a GF1 with it’s pancake and a Voigtländer 40mm f1.4 lens. but still I will buy x100 as my primary street/everyday camera because it has everything I need 99% of the time
maybe it’s just because i love my konica hexar and this one is like its digital brother.
Fully agree
oh and if they can make a leica M9 alternative within $2,000 that’ll be the end of m43, and leica i guess.
What makes it a failure or success? For some companies, you have to sell millions of units to be successful, while to niche market like Leica, it’s not so much.
It’s already a success for Fuji, because Fuji never expected it gathered so much attention. They expected a lot less units to be sold.
It’s a niche…, niche = not mass market. If you don’t like the design strategy, then don’t buy it, because you’re not in that niche.
Some of you guys really need to read the official website before you expressed your opinion. x100 was clearly designed with fixed lens in mind. The sensor was modified to fit that lens (not the other way around). And hybrid viewfinder is revolving around that lens. Hybrid viewfinder cannot work in OVF mode if it’s an interchangeable lens (without much compromise anyways).
It’s all about quality, so if you don’t want quality, then you’re not in that niche. Some people have longed for a camera with manual control of everything, and with a fixed lens (not interchangeable). m4/3 is in a different market segment. m4/3 is about making okay quality photos without bulk. The market is about everyday consumers, and so the interface caters that end of the spectrum. x100 is aimed for professional shooters. If you put a zoom lens on it, pros are NOT going to buy it.
Just because you don’t want it, doesn’t mean it’s a failure. The world isn’t about your needs. There is a product for everyone, if you believe in free market. Mass market product is about catering most of the consumers, niche market doesn’t have that mandate. That’s why most American businesses are such a failure in term of getting a niche market (do we have a luxury car brand? Everything luxury brand Ford and GM bought, they turned it into a mass market car with no prestige, because they don’t know how to run a niche where cost cutting and market share isn’t so important). They don’t understand even if the niche is less than 10% of the entire market, it can still be lucrative.
You have said what I was thinking better than I could have.
This isn’t a camera for everyone and doesn’t try to be. It doesn’t have every feature ever to be put on a camera. It isn’t versatile enought to shoot wildlife, fast cars, weddings and night portraits by just swapping lenses.
But for some people it’s more or less perfect. It’s a little expensive for me at the moment, thought I know that will change after the initial rush of sales. But as someone who loves the old rangefinders (Canonets etc) this camera has really caught my attention.
1/1000 max??? explains the built in ND filter then… lol
I think they will sell but only niche so not really going to turn Fuji’s fortunes around..
Fastest shutter speed is 1/4000.
Nowhere does Fuji say, “This camera will turn our fortunes around.”
This is what the X100 website does say-
“Fall in love with photography all over again.
Inspired by the beauty and form of classic cameras from the past, the FinePix X100 combines all the latest technical digital innovations in a beautiful, traditional chassis which oozes class and prestige.”
you should read it more carefully before drawing your conclusions.
It’s a near silent leaf shutter, happy to have 1/1000 max at some f-stops for that.
By all means this is very fresh and bold. I congratulate Fuji on a cleaver marketing approach and a building up potential buyer crowd well in advance. So I suspect this will be very hard to come by for us in Europe. Say months of order cue.
I am hoping to see a lot of image sample for investigating very soon.
Thom, I definitely can see your point about Fujis shrinking sales and service network. They will have to rely on “remote” support and internet sales.
They should partner with someone. That, or the X100 will be relocated to a few high-margin enthusiast dealers in the big cities.
To those saying that the only people who want this camera want it for bragging rights, and style over substance, I’ve got to say that you are really not giving it much thought – or not considering other’s possible points of view.
I’m looking at the X100 as the COMPLETE opposite of that. When finances allow, I’ll be buying one to NOT be noticed. It’s not a case that I want the camera so people can see how stylish or cutting edge I am, I don’t want them to see (or hear) me at all. I just want to be able to go about my life, see something interesting, and try to capture some of the essence of it in an image. A quality image, that stands up to some working over afterwards without losing any of that quality.
And that fits in my pocket so I can take it a lot of places. I don’t want to carry a camera bag, I just want to be a person who takes photos, not the photographer.
As someone else pointed out the X100 is not a mass market product, few people are going to spend £1000 on a fixed lens rangefinder.
Enthusiasts and working photographers who didn’t go for the micro four thirds cameras might be swayed by the X100, but price may still be an issue. I bought a GF1 with 20mm f1.7 for £450, that’s less than half of the price of the X100, had the X100 been nearer £600 I’d have bought it instead ?
It has got one thing going for it…it’s a very desirable camera and there aren’t many of those in the digital world.
I dont think it will kill them, but they definetly should do X1000 for m4/3. Use everything possible from X100 and make m4/3 body out of it.
Why? This body already has a better sensor and better IQ. Why do one that is essentially a downgrade? If anything, if a newer version comes along, they should just keep this version, and add a nice set of lenses, perhaps even adopt the Contax-G mount, lenses that are already AF and small, and far better than any Micro Four Turd camera could mount natively
@ admin – just heard back from Fuji re shutter speed in A mode – the 1/30th second claim in the Quesabesde review is incorrect (probably typo FWIW). Brochure statement of 30sec-1/1000th or 1/4000th depending on aperture is correct shutter speed range of X100 in A mode.
Also, just to add a small fact that answers a question above for the archives – the sensor is designed and manufactured by Fuji.