Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pcg

After the latest firmware update, X100 vs X100s?

Recommended Posts

pcg

I own the X100, and don't have a X100s for comparison. I'm now curious, after the latest firmware update for the X100, are its focusing speeds (for instance) comparable to the X100s? I know it has a clunkier menu, but that's a minor quibble. My bigger question is whether the shooting capabilities of the X100 are now close enough to the 100s to make an upgrade to the new camera difficult to rationalize.

Comments and opinions appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranger

Aside from any difference in focusing speeds, the FW update has pretty much eliminated the 'aperture dance' shutter delay in the X100, but AFAIK this issue hasn't been addressed in the X100s yet. For me, that alone puts the X100 out ahead.

Where the X100s has a meaningful edge is in the reduced write times, which I expect allows you to cycle to the next shot about twice as fast as the X100, but I haven't worked with the X100s to know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
allineedsislight

I think with the 2.01 firmware the only meaningful difference to the X100s is a much better EVF, higher image resolution, and of course the Xtrans Sensor. If you need any of that upgrade, otherwise keep your X100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pcg

And the major FW upgrade was 2.0, w/ the 2.01 release almost unnecessary.

What's not been said is that the new year may well bring an X200. I think w/ the differences so minor between the X100 and 100s, it's probably best to wait Fuji out for their next surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EternalHope

I love my x100s for many things, and I never owned an x100. However, when I tried a second hand one in the store I was quite surprised at how snappy the auto focus speed was. In fact, so surprised that I thought, "wow...what was everyone going on about with this thing anyways?" There seems to be a sweet spot with these cameras where the auto focusing speed is quite quick if you're about 6-8 feet away. That's my experience anyways. If you already have the x100 and are looking for an upgrade, if the menu system isn't an issue for you then at this point I think you'd be better off with what you have and waiting to see what comes down the pipe in January. That's what I'm doing with my x-pro 1. Either Fuji is going to come out with a replacement that's going to be really what I'm looking for, or I might be on the look out for a new ILC system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p3t3or

I'm a little surprised at how content I am with keeping my x100 until either something as "revolutionary" like it comes along, or they finally decide to go Full Frame with it. Even if they go FF, there will have to be vast improvements otherwise for any serious consideration of upgrading.

Plus, I think that "s" is pretty hideous :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K1W1_Mk2

A good rule of thumb is to buy each second model of camera. If I owned a X100 I doubt very much whether I would have purchased a s model instead I would be waiting for the next release. As I own a s model I will probably skip the next release and look at the one after assuming that there is a fourth version of the X100 in it's current format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pcg

@K1W1, nice rule of thumb. Makes sense on all levels.

@p3t3or, full frame has definite appeal. I'm curious about why you think the "s" is "hideous," given that it's virtually identical in appearance to the 100. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K1W1_Mk2

@K1W1, nice rule of thumb. Makes sense on all levels.

Thanks. It's not an original idea of mine by any means. I think I may have even seen it on Thom Hogans site at one stage. The basic idea is that gives you 3.5-4 years between camera body updates which means you get value for money from the purchase plus technology will have moved enough during that period that there generally is significant differences that make an upgrade worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benporteous

I'm curious about why you think the "s" is "hideous," given that it's virtually identical in appearance to the 100. Am I missing something?

I think he means the actual red 's' on the front of the camera. I agree. It kinda detracts from the clean looks of the rest of the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattmaber

I think he means the 's' on the front too. Mind you with a half case it's pretty much identical to the x100.

I have no plans to replace my x100, in happy with it as my main digital camera until I loose it or it breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pcg

I agree with all that the red "s" is a bit much, as in "Mine's an S, no mistaking it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K1W1_Mk2

I use my camera by looking through the viewfinder at the back or using the EVF. I had actually completely forgotten about the s on the front until I read this thread. I even had to look at the front of the camera to remind myself where the s is. If people are concerned about how their camera looks from the front they are spending too much time taking selfies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

A used X100 can be had for a great price now. Buy from a camera polisher who must have the latest model and snag a bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

If people are concerned about how their camera looks from the front they are spending too much time taking selfies.

Good one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnwillyums

I have been very happy with my X100 for over two years. The firmware updates have simply made it better and better. Recently I had it stolen and replaced by my insurance company. I was hoping for a X100s, but they managed to find the X100. At first I was a bit disappointed, but, having looked at images from the X100s I think I prefer the look of the older sensor in the X100. They look more film like to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

Not sure about this desire for more "film like look". If that's what I wanted I'd not be paying so much for digital gear but instead using a fine (and dirt cheap) old film camera. When I think of "film like", what I see is prints that have been processed automatically with no thought for the desired exposure or filter effects and just like all pictures in the same batch reduced to the lowest common denominator - in other words, absolute rubbish. That is why I went to either B+W home processed or colour reversal film, usually home processed then viewed by projector or large viewer to pick those I would print via Ilford's Cibachrome system. The advantage of reversal (slide) film was that what you took was what you got, exposure, filter effects and all. The automated print process based its settings of colour, exposure and etc for the whole film on the first exposure and even cancelled the effects of filters. I never got a print worth having unless I printed myself or sent off to pro print services which is fine when you're getting paid for the shoot but expensive for your private work.

I liked Ecktachrome and cheap Barfen film for grainy effects and sometimes Velvia or Kodachrome but I'm more than happy with what I get from my digital cameras and apart from maybe MF Portra, I don't think anyone could tell the difference between my digital and film output since I process to my liking and what the scene looked like to me.

So why is "film-like" considered a good thing - or is it just a current pseudo fad/buzz word? After all - a huge number of current photographers never used film in anger and only took the usual "holiday snaps" processed at the local chemist (pharmacy), before digital came along so I see no reason why they should have an affinity for the film look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

"So why is "film-like" considered a good thing - or is it just a current pseudo fad/buzz word?"

Sabastiao Salgado stopped using Tri-X because he believes there is less silver content now. However to maintain the look he has his digital images converted to film, so clearly he believes it important. Ansel Adams, among many others, achieved a film look digital is yet to reproduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
allineedsislight

Not sure about this desire for more "film like look".

the "film look" is not a buzz word. I think it is mostly about dynamic range so that highlights are not abruplty blown out, and also about the possibility of haveing the background slightly out of focus.

The JPGs from x100 definitely have the film look that I get from film scans from my good old Olympus XA and Mju II (that I still dearly love!). I actually always hoped that Olympus would come out with a digital version of the XA, but alas, Fuji brought us the X100 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattmaber

Id say generally its as simple as personal preference. Now maybe X100 Jpegs aren't so much strictly film look as how we may think film should look. Does that matter? Nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

"So why is "film-like" considered a good thing - or is it just a current pseudo fad/buzz word?"

Sabastiao Salgado stopped using Tri-X because he believes there is less silver content now. However to maintain the look he has his digital images converted to film, so clearly he believes it important. Ansel Adams, among many others, achieved a film look digital is yet to reproduce.

It is a waste of time quoting to me what other famous or not photographers say or do because I do not necessarily hold them in as high regard as you neither does their proficiency as photographers entitle them them to any particular say on matters outside of picture taking.

To me, HCB who is often mentioned along with "the decisive moment", is a charlatan. As a matter of record most of his pictures were staged and over contrasty - rarely anywhere near properly exposed. To me he is one of a large group of so called artists who come under the umbrella - Those who can - do. Those who can't - call themselves artists.

Even Ansel Adams whose images I enjoy, had most of his prints hand printed by a trusted aide who for my money is entitled to equal billing. The Ansel Adams look is as much about the 10x8 negs and correct exposure in the taking and the printing as it is the film emulsion and hardly any of the photographers here (barring pros) had their negs separately developed and prints made by hand so these arguments are mostly null and void.

As to the dynamic range - most pro film photographers of my experience (except maybe portraitists) used colour reversal which has little dynamic range. Velvia for instance had a 1/4 stop maximum before the shadows blocked and no headroom at all in the highlights. There was some increased dynamic range in the higher ISOs where granularity had to be accepted as either a necessity or an artistic tool but the truth is you had no choice in the matter. Print film had more dynamic range than reversal but not as much as my digital files when I use raw and local changes to exposure.

One more thing - when you scan an image, that image becomes digital. If you display a printed image on a screen or via the net, it is a digital image. When you see images by Adams, HCB, Solgado on your screen, you are viewing a digital image.

I will say this in favour (of B+W prints only) - there is a difference between viewing - in real life - a really good, well controlled print made on fibre based paper which is far better than viewing that image even on good class paper in a book. It is no good viewing it online. Anyone who has not been to an exhibition of fine B+W prints should go to one because that is the only way you will see the true difference between digital and film - you will not see it on a screen and that is why I say this "filmic look" talk is mostly in the mind and often said by people who have no experience of film. Unfortunately such an exhibition may well leave you exasperated at your inability to reproduce that look of deep warm blacks, pure whites and clearly graded grey tones on your screen. I think the only way to get prints like that would be with new, specialised, yet to be developed software, printers, inks and printing papers. Of course, you could get yourself a 5X8 or 8X10 camera and then you'd be entitled to look down on we mere mortals with our toy cameras. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pcg

@veejaycee, +9, almost 10, to those comments. Even-handed, experienced & thoughtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

Although I disagree with almost everything you say, veejaycee, you're correct on the print. Digital cameras are popular because they coincide with the internet, screen sharing age, where immediacy is everything. For those of us who prefer prints, film still has much to offer.

I use 5 x 4, medium format, 35mm as well as various digital formats, and each have their advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recommended Discussions



×
×
  • Create New...