advertisement


X100 vs X100s

Julian H

pfm Member
Hi knowledgeable fotofolk!

Very much I have been drawn to the colour balance straight out of the X100 as seen from my mates X100 and numerous downloaded images from the internet. I am now wondering about going for the later S version instead. Does that have the same delicious colours? FYI, my mate usually uses the Provia film mode on his X100.

I have also spotted the new Nikon A and Sony RX1 {Sony out of my budget LOL] but neither has quite those X100 colours, although, it is difficult to be sure based on downloaded web images. Can anyone give me their first hand experience of any of these models?

Cheers, Julian
 
The X100S has the same sensor as the X-Pro1, so expect the same sort of colours. The main difference is the use of an XTRANS Sensor /colour filter array instead of a Bayer one. In theory (according to Fuji) the colours should be more accurate with the X-Pro1/X100S, although most people will use one of the film simulations.

The Coolpix A produces identical colours to the Nikon D7000. Personally I use it in a modified neutral colour picture control with sharpening turned up a smidge.
 
If you like Fuji colours, then buy an X-series camera. The X100 is a lovely tool to use and I imagine the X100S is even better. I'm now using an X-E1 as my only camera, it really does everything I want. I shoot RAW plus JPG, and set my JPG film simulation to suit what I'm doing - its set to Pro Neg soft today as we're doing flash lit portraits this afternoon, yesterday it was Veliva, as I was doing flowers, and if the weather holds up, I'll take one of the models out into the garden later on and use Astia. Sometimes the RAW is best, but I'm using the JPGs mare than I though I would.
 
Hi

Thanks for the replies. You both seem to be echoing my thoughts. If I want the colours, to be safe, I need to stick with the Fuji. Which of course is no bad thing. I like the idea of not having an AA filter on the sensor too. And Cliff, I note that the Nikon A does without the AA filter, and that it has the fine tuneable picture control that you mention, so should that mean it stays in the running? I am not averse to a Nikon, another bonus being the built in lens cap. Silly little things like that really make a difference.

I have owned a couple of Panasonic's in the past. In fact, I only just sold my GF1 with a couple of lenses. Not because it was not a super camera to use, with excellent quality, but I just didn't like the output. Somewhat bizarrely I preferred the 14-42 IQ to that of the 20mm prime. I could never put my finger on why though.

I'd like to own a Leica M but to be honest, I am not comfortable having to look after it all the time, particularly on walking and climbing holidays so will leave that sort of investment for another time!

Julian
 
Hi

Thanks for the replies. You both seem to be echoing my thoughts. If I want the colours, to be safe, I need to stick with the Fuji. Which of course is no bad thing. I like the idea of not having an AA filter on the sensor too. And Cliff, I note that the Nikon A does without the AA filter, and that it has the fine tuneable picture control that you mention, so should that mean it stays in the running? I am not averse to a Nikon, another bonus being the built in lens cap. Silly little things like that really make a difference.

I have owned a couple of Panasonic's in the past. In fact, I only just sold my GF1 with a couple of lenses. Not because it was not a super camera to use, with excellent quality, but I just didn't like the output. Somewhat bizarrely I preferred the 14-42 IQ to that of the 20mm prime. I could never put my finger on why though.

I'd like to own a Leica M but to be honest, I am not comfortable having to look after it all the time, particularly on walking and climbing holidays so will leave that sort of investment for another time!

Julian

I think it's a case of Horses for Courses. The Leica M is better put together than most cameras, and provided you put it in the Leica neoprene bag before you put it in your rucsac it will survive better than an X100S. The Nikon is smaller still and you can use a more padded bag and still occupy the same space in your climbing pack.

Unless you plan to use the optical viewfinder, you don't need the weight and bulk of the system. This makes the RX1 an interesting option as it has the same sort of manual focus peeping on the rear screen as the Leica M.

Personally, I don't think you can ever have too many cameras, so I have the Nikon as a carry around for occasional shots during the working week; I have the X-Pro1 for any situation where you need good low light performance and a discrete package, and I have the Nikon SLR system for situations where you need more resolution or more focal length "reach"
 
Kevin. Of course, I'd like a deal too :) Thanks for the link.

Cliff
Any excuse to have a new camera eh? The RX1 is outside my budget and TBH, I would rather pick up a used M than spend that sort of money. I did briefly consider the XPro1 but is seems a bit big to me. I am sure Ill end up with either the 100 or 100s, just which one?!?!

Cheers, Julian
 
It makes financial sense to buy a good 2nd hand x100 for £350 and just use it.

It will take a year for x100s values to seriously drop.

Lots of SLR guys have x100 as their backup camera and some sell them on with very little use.

I got a 6mo mint x100 with Fuji case, footprint strap, 2 x batteries and B+W UV filter for about £450 and love it.
 
Hi

Thanks for the replies.

jaybee, I don't really take a lot of notice of reviews. I prefer to play with kit myself and make a decision from there. That said, it is good that he likes it.

andy, yes, if I could find a good example for £350 I might buy it,most I see are more like £450 though. The thing that concerns me about buying secondhand one though is the aperture problems that some had. I think I'd rather have a guarantee?
 
I really don't that aperture issue is as prevalent as you may think from reading forums. I suspect that buying a later second hand build would make it even less likely, there must have been a 'fix' some way thru the product run? Any cameras that did come back had a whole new assembly fitted.

I think the x100 will still command £200-250 on the second hand market even when the x100s values soften. SLR guys would be prepared to drop that amount for a good backup camera and they are the type that know how to make the best of the x100, for them using a x100s wouldn't greatly change the end result images that the thing produces (I wish I was one of them!).
 
Today's a perfect example of why I own an x100.

We are doing renovation works on a property and need to take photos. Normally I would have taken my crappy Cannon compact as I couldn't be arsed walking around site with the Nikon SLR. However, the x100 in it's case is easy to handle and well protected so it's my 'go to' camera.

If you buy one second hand for <£400, you will get your moneys worth over the 12 months before swapping to second hand x100s for £500.
 
Hi

Thanks for the replies. You both seem to be echoing my thoughts. If I want the colours, to be safe, I need to stick with the Fuji. Which of course is no bad thing. I like the idea of not having an AA filter on the sensor too. And Cliff, I note that the Nikon A does without the AA filter, and that it has the fine tuneable picture control that you mention, so should that mean it stays in the running? I am not averse to a Nikon, another bonus being the built in lens cap. Silly little things like that really make a difference.

I have owned a couple of Panasonic's in the past. In fact, I only just sold my GF1 with a couple of lenses. Not because it was not a super camera to use, with excellent quality, but I just didn't like the output. Somewhat bizarrely I preferred the 14-42 IQ to that of the 20mm prime. I could never put my finger on why though.

I'd like to own a Leica M but to be honest, I am not comfortable having to look after it all the time, particularly on walking and climbing holidays so will leave that sort of investment for another time!

Julian

Meet yourself half way and put Leica glass on the X Pro 1, amazing sensor with the best glass available . You dont have to panic about the care of the very high cost Leica M body, but get all the other benefits
 
I can certainly now count myself amongst the X1 Pro converts; it's quite a way better than the 5Dmk2 for high iso and the images have a lovely quality to them. Don't knock the Fuji glass, though; I haven't got any Leica M glass to compare to, but I can't imagine there being much room to improve upon over the results from the 35/1.4 and indeed the 18-55/2.8-4 zoom (which, against all the odds, runs the 35/1.4 very close indeed and offers built in image stabilisation).

I've since also added a Canon FD->Fuji mount to take advantage of some odd older FD glass, and am planning on adding a Contax G mount to press the G 45/2 into use - now *that's* an amazing bit of glass, and I am sure it'll be stunning on the Fuji.
 
Hi

Thanks for the replies.

jaybee, I don't really take a lot of notice of reviews. I prefer to play with kit myself and make a decision from there. That said, it is good that he likes it.

andy, yes, if I could find a good example for £350 I might buy it,most I see are more like £450 though. The thing that concerns me about buying secondhand one though is the aperture problems that some had. I think I'd rather have a guarantee?

I would thoroughly agree, most reviews are an exercise in smoke blowing...

x was good but x mkii is amaaaazing,

you rarely hear real criticism, that's why I take his opinion into consideration, he has no issues with critical reviewing, and has a foot in reality that regardless of how good an slr is its never going to match medium format, so the real distinctions between models the real differences are in real world useability, which it would appear is where the Fuji X series really shine!
 


advertisement


Back
Top