X100 Still Relevant? - Fujifilm X100 Discussions on Fuji X Series Camera Forum - Fujifilm X-Pro1 X-E1 X100S X100 X20 X10 XF1 X-S1

MMitchell

The X100 is a great camera that has a larger and better sensor over the X10 but is it still relevant and will it be months from now?

cosinaphile

it is a classic and a classic endures

nippa

I bought mine this week with a late serial number to complement my Leica X1.
With the latest firmware and hopefully the SAB problem fixed in production I see no reason for the X100 not becoming a cult camera.
So far I'm loving it.

fiddler

A good camera does not turn sour like old milk. A good camera will always be good.

WilzWorkz7

even if the XPRO1 comes with the 24mm lens that will make the x100 irrelevant in the market place, it won't be irrelevant to the effect it has on the way people think about the APS-C potential. X100, to me, is at least the product that actually wakes people up on what the APS-C can do. It shows that going full frame is not necessary for those who are sick of lugging around DSLRs and yet unable to get better quality output.

It is the product akin to the iPhone waking up the mobile phone industry. This is the camera that will force the competition to think of those who has no use for Full Frame or have bought lens that support their APS-C standard but failed to return the favour/support by not producing products that is cutting edge after so many years in the market.

For that, the X100 will be a cult camera. I don't care if it has scratches on its bodies from over usage or the x200 is on the horizon. It is the camera that helped me realised my regret for not getting the S5Pro DSLR and then relieved it by producing outstanding images.

It will be relevant for those who thank Fujifilm for making a fantastic image capture tool for those who are sick of paying too much for too little by the big boys for far too long.

p3t3or

Well said. I sold all my dslr gear and I haven't looked back. The x100 literally goes everywhere with me and it is perfect for just about everything I want to do. It has inspired me to make my way back to film. I've got a Hi-Matic 7s coming my way as we speak and I even see a Leica M6 as a real possibility in mid-future.

pcg

Wilz: Eloquently said. I agree wholeheartedly.

fiddler

I'm another who dumped the DSLR and haven't looked back.

MMitchell

What about used X100's They usually go for about $950. Depending on the body I know but is it better to buy one new. Does the camera have an outstanding problem when it ages?
ALSO,
Is it better to own an X100 for an everyday travel camera rather then owning a DSLR? Is it really practical to own an X100 for travel when I already own an X10.

RogerRabbit

There are a lot Of detail faults in the X100 (exp comp switch focus mode switch, rear buttons, ovf/EVF viewfinder switch, menus) most are caused by retro design and lack of thought by Fuji. Hopefully they will release a X200 which fix these faults but it will not be X100 and X100 will still be good camera.

MMitchell

RogerRabbit said:
There are a lot Of detail faults in the X100 (exp comp switch focus mode switch, rear buttons, ovf/EVF viewfinder switch, menus) most are caused by retro design and lack of thought by Fuji. Hopefully they will release a X200 which fix these faults but it will not be X100 and X100 will still be good camera.

For me the most important thing is the outstanding Image Quality.
And is the camera going to drop in price before I buy one?

cosinaphile

the camera will descend to about 800 usd in good shape and stay there for a while
the excellence of the image quality is becoming widespread knowlwege so in the secondRY MARKET OF USED CAMERAS IT WIL GET SNATCHED UP PRETTY SOON AT THAT PRICE ..... IM SURE it will keep a decent used price

MMitchell

cosinaphile said:
the camera will descend to about 800 usd in good shape and stay there for a while
the excellence of the image quality is becoming widespread knowlwege so in the secondRY MARKET OF USED CAMERAS IT WIL GET SNATCHED UP PRETTY SOON AT THAT PRICE ..... IM SURE it will keep a decent used price

Thanks for the input!

RogerRabbit

MMitchell said:

Thanks for the input I just didn't want to spend money and loss on an investment

Put you money in the bank and do not buy any camera. Cameras are not investments and what ever camera you buy will be worth only a few dollars in 5 years time. If you do not want to loose money photography is a bad sport.
On other hand think of this. What say because you are mean with the dollars and don't buy and keep waiting and waiting you miss the best chance you eve will have in your hole live to take a fantastic photo that may give you large pleasures and make you lots of money. Would waiting for investment potential be worthwhile then?

cosinaphile

the only camera know to hold value are the leicas ,.... even they become alot less valueable eventually ... except for rarities

most cameras become worthless , some buck the trend and hold all their value for many years like the epson cosina digitl body

pcg

Yes, to the above couple comments. I'm a little taken aback at anyone who says they don't want to lose money. You should be saying you want to take great photos. With that attitude, you'll never buy any camera. Whatever you buy, if you do, assume you'll use it 5-10 years, period. Even better, assume it'll have almost no value after that time. This is all about taking great shots, not investments.

Gipper

If you own an X100 and you like the pictures it takes and enjoy using it, it is relevant.

I have a Nikon D300. Not the latest model. I still take nice pictures with it. I love shooting with the X100 (see my B&W post here). The cameras I use are relevant. Every bit of technology becomes "last year's model." So what? You can't buy a camera every month to keep up with the latest.

Buy a camera, use it for the tool it is, and upgrade only when there is a major leap in quality or something else compelling. Photography is much more about the eye, the mind, and the heart behind the camera than the camera itself.

The rewards of shooting good pictures are what remains relevant.

fiddler

So true.

MMitchell

pcg said:
Yes, to the above couple comments. I'm a little taken aback at anyone who says they don't want to lose money. You should be saying you want to take great photos. With that attitude, you'll never buy any camera. Whatever you buy, if you do, assume you'll use it 5-10 years, period. Even better, assume it'll have almost no value after that time. This is all about taking great shots, not investments.

I'd be surprised if you use the same camera digital camera for 10 years.

RogerRabbit

I still regularly use Nikon D50 from 7 years. It still takes good picture and very useful when I need small light camera. I cannot see why it not last at least another 3 or 4 years unless I break or lose it.

Wibblewobble

Gipper said:
If you own an X100 and you like the pictures it takes and enjoy using it, it is relevant.

I have a Nikon D300. Not the latest model. I still take nice pictures with it. I love shooting with the X100 (see my B&W post here). The cameras I use are relevant. Every bit of technology becomes "last year's model." So what? You can't buy a camera every month to keep up with the latest.

Buy a camera, use it for the tool it is, and upgrade only when there is a major leap in quality or something else compelling. Photography is much more about the eye, the mind, and the heart behind the camera than the camera itself.

The rewards of shooting good pictures are what remains relevant.

Well said !!!!

dre_stylez

Great points made throughout! I would also like to add that though film photography is not considered "relevant", many still use film cameras in this age of digital photography, there's still a large following!

mattmaber

I agree with much of what's said here ;)

MMitchell

dre_stylez said:
Great points made throughout! I would also like to add that though film photography is not considered "relevant", many still use film cameras in this age of digital photography, there's still a large following!

Film and digital are to completely different area's to discus.

pcg

No, they're not. Different tools, but designed for the identical purpose.

MMitchell

pcg said:
No, they're not. Different tools, but designed for the identical purpose.

Here you go. You should do some light reading. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

pcg

Please.

JeremyDMeier

Although nobody should take what Ken Rockwell says as ultimate truth (even he'll tell you that), the two are both for the same purpose, and different. Sure they are both media to create imagery, but the output is all together different in terms of feel, approach to image capture, printability, workflow, etc...

Film is not dead people,. only those that are afraid to go out and shoot it anymore think it's dead. There are still plenty of great films in the marketplace, and use like any artist, you choose your medium and work with it. Sometimes if you actually get your shot right in camera, you won't have to rely on photoshop all the time.

This reminds me of a guy I used to work with when I was a teenager. Me and him both played guitar, he was maybe 15 years older than me, and he used to brag about playing "only PRS guitars" (which were very nice, and pretty expensive). He used to say "I'll only pick up and play a PRS, everything else just isn't worth my time" Now, he (as far as I know) still sells cameras, but a guy like Stevie Ray Vaughn could play pretty much any guitar placed in front of him, whether it was high precision or a cheap piece of crap. They would all sound just as nice...

I guess the point is, don't knock film because you can't go through your "workflow" as easy. If you like it, just go shoot with it and enjoy, if you don't then you're missing out a little bit.

biscuit

"Film is not dead people" - thanks for the Soylent Green moment.

NYCGooner

I still shoot 4x5 film regularly, but I disagree a bit JeremyDMeier. Film is most certainly niche. While you can still find it and work with it, the diversity of choice is more limited everyday and the relative costs continue to rise. Accessibility to new shooters outside of the disposable medium is almost nonexistent. Its practicality for modern day working application is greatly diminished because of shifting demands, so in that sense it is very dead. Again, I love shooting with my B&J press camera, but I do so solely for my own benefit. This makes film relavent pretty much only to me and however many enthusiasts still exist, not to the current overall population and climate of photography. For me, film died many years ago and is alive only in spirit really and I'm ok with keeping my spirits up! (and of course drinking them down ;)
my 2 cents.

WilzWorkz7

I will shoot film too if not for the fact that I can't finish a roll that easily nowadays. I guess I am more selective of what I will be shooting these days or I got stuck behind the desk churning out proposals for photography events and activities.

That said, still film is in itself the adrenaline pumper. Why? Know that feeling when you are waiting for the prints to come out? It will always gives me a strong sense of achievement whenever I get prints because it shows me that I have done well despite very little leeway in terms of post processing (my dark room days is way behind me).

I shoot with the canon L1 which is the Leica based Canon RF. Am using the lens for the XE1 too.

biscuit

Film is still in use in educational programs - it's really the best way to get students to understand reciprocity, etc.

And the magic of the darkroom process sucks them in.

BTW, for those of you who are still doing film, a suppler you should know of is Freestyle Photographic in LA. They have an extensive on-line catalog and among other things sell re-badged Tri-X (as Arista Premium) at a good price for bulk buys.

No, I don't work for Freestyle, but as an educator I've bought from them for many years

gryphon1911

RogerRabbit said:
I still regularly use Nikon D50 from 7 years. It still takes good picture and very useful when I need small light camera. I cannot see why it not last at least another 3 or 4 years unless I break or lose it.

+1

I bought my Nikon D50 same year it was released and I keep it because it can do something all the newer Nikon DSLRs cannot. Something that only the D40/D70 series cameras can share in.

I can use a non-TTL/CLS flash and can get a sync speed of 1/1250th. That hybrid electronic and focal plane shutter of the CCD sensor really comes in handy at times when you need to have a fast shutter speed to kill the ambient of freeze action in combination with off camera flash.

As stated previously, just because a new model comes out, doesn't mean that the older models somehow stop functioning.

Heck, I know tons of people(me included) that would much rather have a late 60's Camaro or Mustang than any of the newer models on the market today.

WilzWorkz7

Yup, the D70 is still in my dry cabinet.

seagrove01

I purchased a Nikon D2H when they hit the streets in 2003. Bought another as backup in 2008 when the paper laid me off. Both are still clicking along (one with 120,000 on its second shutter and the second at over 50,000). I have had images from these bodies used for billboards so why should I change. At 8 fps and a 38ms shutter release, I see no need to upgrade at this point. Now that retirement is looming on the very near horizon, I am getting tired of the weight of fast f2.8 zooms and the pro bodies. That is why I have a X100s on pre-order and can't wait for it to arrive!!!

Earbypics

No disrespect intended here but precisely what is the purpose of this post?? In what way can something be described as not being relevant? I would place a hefty bet that somewhere in the world there is a photographer using an old film Box Brownie and still achieving good results. Is his work 'less' than that of a digital SLR user? Do the great images produced on any number of different, but now defunct, camera's have less meaning because they weren't produced on some all-singing-all-dancing piece of kit? Why is the relevance of the X100 called into question? Because somebody in Japan has tweaked this and that on the X100 and called it the X100s the X100 is now "not relevant"? The world has gone seriously mad.

K1W1

If you look at the date of the original post you will see that the thread was started at the time of the arrival of the X-Pro1. The implication of the post was the OP asking if the X100 would be relevant after The arrival of the X-Pro1. At the time it was a fair question IMO.

joeradza

K1W1 said:
If you look at the date of the original post you will see that the thread was started at the time of the arrival of the X-Pro1. The implication of the post was the OP asking if the X100 would be relevant after The arrival of the X-Pro1. At the time it was a fair question IMO.

If you think that question is relevant, let me ask you this? Do you buy everything new every day? Clothes, cars, cameras, EVERYTHING? Dumbest question asked yet. Oh, and by the way Kiwi is spelled with an "i". I'm out of here.

WilzWorkz7

Relevance is when one is at the cross roads. Not everyone bought the X100, x10, Xpro 1 and XE1. There will be time when people came into the Fujifilm cameras at different times and it offers people different perspectives with changes in needs and wants.

So to discount someone is really not fair too. Everyone see things differently and have needs and wants that are different too.

respect the differences.

Colin_Nicholls

I think the retro look and great feel of this camera will give it longevity for years to come, I know I don't for second regret buying mine and am soon to delve further into the X-Series with the XE-1.

K1W1

@joeradza
Why was it necessary to introduce personal criticism of my forum ID into your response?
You have no right or privilege here or anywhere else to be the arbiter of what ID people use on the forum and you especially have no right to interpret what any ID means which in this case is 100% wrong.

pcg

Don't worry, K1W1, Joe has dismissed himself after that ridiculous post. Still, a thick skin is necessary around here on occasion. :-)

Hello Photographer!

Categories