Fuji Finepix X100 Show Report

[monza]

http://www.japanexposures.com/2011/0...cture-on-show/

[tom in mpls]

Robert, do you know if the frame lines do indeed disappear briefly when the shutter is half pressed? Or has this been eliminated in the production camera?

[monza]

Tom, I don't know. I haven't seen one.

[tom in mpls]

Me want.

btw have you seen all the lunatic X100 bashing at dpreview? Seems to happen too often at that forum.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

Me want.

btw have you seen all the lunatic X100 bashing at dpreview? Seems to happen too often at that forum.

Hi Tom
I'm proud to say that I haven't read any of it . . . life is so much simpler that way, and 12 years on internet forums has told me where to find a fight (or not).

I think it's the most delicious thing . . . . . but, truth be told, as the show report says, it is just a fixed focal length point and shoot with some pretty buttons and a great viewfinder . . . and it is only 12mp. it seems to me to be like a digital version of an Olympus trip (and none the worse for that) . . . if that's what you want. It'll be interesting to see whether it produces better images than a NEX5.

all the best

P.S. I want too

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hi Tom
I'm proud to say that I haven't read any of it . . . life is so much simpler that way, and 12 years on internet forums has told me where to find a fight (or not).

I think it's the most delicious thing . . . . . but, truth be told, as the show report says, it is just a fixed focal length point and shoot with some pretty buttons and a great viewfinder . . . and it is only 12mp. it seems to me to be like a digital version of an Olympus trip (and none the worse for that) . . . if that's what you want. It'll be interesting to see whether it produces better images than a NEX5.

all the best

P.S. I want too

I watched some of those DPReview threads in horror and amazement. One of them was like watching two 12 year-olds on the playground arguing about whose dad made more money. Seriously stupid.

Unfortunately I couldn't control myself and had to jump in on another thread but in retrospect there is really no reason to post over there...

I'm not sure if the Trip is a good comparison or even a point and shoot for that matter. The Trip has no user selectable exposure controls (aperture or shutter speed) and neither do most point and shoots (the real good ones have Aperture Priority)

In my mind, with the X100 we are basically getting the control experience of a Contax G1/G2 (similar size, optical viewfinder with exposure data, full manual controls on the camera body/lens and auto focus) except without the interchangeable lenses.

To me, the experience in capturing an image is in the camera control, not in the lens selection. If you shot with a Contax G2 fitted with only the 35mm f/2 lens, then the X100 would be a very, very close descendant.

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

...it is just a fixed focal length point and shoot with some pretty buttons and a great viewfinder...

Jono, I reserve the term P&S for small sensor/enormous DOF cams. Certainly one may disagree with my limited definition. I might modify your statement to say, "it's a fixed focal length large sensor camera with some pretty buttons and a really great viewfinder". Another point to argue over is the significance of aesthetic design, but my wife, a former commercial art director, saw the pics of the X100 and was blown away.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

... I'm not sure if the Trip is a good comparison or even a point and shoot for that matter. The Trip has no user selectable exposure controls (aperture or shutter speed) and neither do most point and shoots (the real good ones have Aperture Priority)

In my mind, with the X100 we are basically getting the control experience of a Contax G1/G2 (similar size, optical viewfinder with exposure data, full manual controls on the camera body/lens and auto focus) except without the interchangeable lenses.

To me, the experience in capturing an image is in the camera control, not in the lens selection. If you shot with a Contax G2 fitted with only the 35mm f/2 lens, then the X100 would be a very, very close descendant.

I've completely ignored and disregarded all the DPR silliness on the X100 ... and most of the same on the Olympus E-5 too .. Waste of time and energy.

I agree with the analogy ... The Olympus Trip 35 (I have one right here) was an economy camera with an economy lens and minimal user override capabilities. The X100 is a premium quality camera with a premium lens, 100% user control, and all the flexibility that implies. That the lens is fixed, that it's "only" 12 Mpixel ... I know a lot of Leica M owners who've been been shooting with "only" a Summicron-M 35mm f/2 lens for thirty years. Not every photographer needs a system camera, and 12Mpixel is more than enough for anything I do with photography, assuming it's a good sensor and a good lens.

I'm quite inclined to the X100, but not yet ready to commit. I know I don't really want another system camera ... I'm very happy with my present DSLR kit and don't want to get into another "gotta have this lens, and that lens, and that other lens" etc.

I've been waiting for the digital equivalent of my Rollei 35S for years now, this looks like it. :-)

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

Jono, I reserve the term P&S for small sensor/enormous DOF cams. Certainly one may disagree with my limited definition. I might modify your statement to say, "it's a fixed focal length large sensor camera with some pretty buttons and a really great viewfinder". Another point to argue over is the significance of aesthetic design, but my wife, a former commercial art director, saw the pics of the X100 and was blown away.

The traditional definition (pre-digital) was definitely "minimal to no user input". About the only thing the photographer controlled was what speed film they put in the camera and the composition.

I'd say the X100 is a far cry from that model. Sure you can put it in full auto mode (just like any modern camera) but what fun is that?

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I've been waiting for the digital equivalent of my Rollei 35S for years now, this looks like it. :-)

Godfry - If only they made it that small!

I'm really looking forward to the day we see a digital version of those fixed focal length compact and sub-compact film cameras with optical viewfinders such as the Rollei and the more automated Aperture Priority point and shoots like the Contax T line, Ricoh GR and the slightly bigger Minilux. Hell, Olympus could have really hit it out of the park and brought back the XA instead of the direction they took with the XZ-1.

I keep telling myself someday someone will stick a FF sensor in a camera that size and have the nerve to make it fixed focal length with an OVF. But I fear the X100 might be the closest we see to that dream...

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I'm very happy with my present DSLR kit and don't want to get into another "gotta have this lens, and that lens, and that other lens" etc.

I've been waiting for the digital equivalent of my Rollei 35S for years now, this looks like it. :-)

You sound like me every time I feel an episode of GAS coming on. Unfortunately it is a chronic condition.

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

...someday someone will stick a FF sensor in a camera that size and have the nerve to make it fixed focus with an OVF.

Let us pray.

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

Let us pray.

I have to say that when the X100 was announced I felt like my prayers had been answered, well 90% of them. We still need to get the size down.

The reason I'm so in love with Fuji at the moment is that they actually did it when all the other manufacturers were going in a different direction. Look at the NEX, great innovative kit but about as far from traditional control as you can get. And now the GF2, another move towards non-traditional control.

Funny how I love all things modern but don't mess with my cameras...

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

Godfry - If only they made it that small!

I'm really looking forward to the day we see a digital version of those fixed focal length compact and sub-compact film cameras with optical viewfinders such as the Rollei and the more automated Aperture Priority point and shoots like the Contax T line, Ricoh GR and the slightly bigger Minilux. Hell, Olympus could have really hit it out of the park and brought back the XA instead of the direction they took with the XZ-1.

I keep telling myself someday someone will stick a FF sensor in a camera that size and have the nerve to make it fixed focal length with an OVF. But I fear the X100 might be the closest we see to that dream...

Actually, I'm happy that it isn't quite that small. It looks to be about the same size as the Oly Trip 35 ... yeah, that again ... which turns out to be an eminently good size for ergonomics in use. The Rollei 35S, although I love it, is a bit small to be the best for handling. I meant that it did what the Rollei 35 did ... provide a pro-quality image maker in a compact form factor for when I don't want to carry anything more bulky or versatile.

[m3photo]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I know a lot of Leica M owners who've been been shooting with "only" a Summicron-M 35mm f/2 lens for thirty years. Not every photographer needs a system camera, and 12Mpixel is more than enough for anything I do with photography, assuming it's a good sensor and a good lens.

Talking of which ...

I'd love to see the comparison between an M9 with said lens and this X100. If all the advertising bumf on its optics is anything to go by, it might be a cheaper upgrade from an M6+35 Summicron for example.

What I'm really surprised at is the fact that Epson never came back with an up-to-date RD, given the market feel for going "retro". The two things I loved about their version was the folding-back screen so it didn't get in the way and that lovely "wind-on" lever.
So, here's the dream - RD-1 as is except for an excellent APS-C sensor like say from the Pentax K5.

[jonoslack]

Well - I stand corrected with respect to 'point and shoot' - certainly, thinking about it my rollei 35 is a much better comparison (apart from size), or, indeed, one of the contax compacts.
It looks like a joyous thing, both ergonomically and from a tactile point of view (it doesn't need an art director to be blown away by the design!). I couldn't resist putting my name down for one at my dealer.
Godfrey, you're right, 12mp ought to be enough, it's just that sometimes it's really nice to be able to do an a1 print. As for M9 comparisons - it may be much better from an ergonomic point of view - might be.
However I don't honestly think that a 12mp sensor with an AA filter and a relatively cheap lens (good though it may be) is likely to compete very well from an image point of view with a summicron, an 18mp CCD and no AA filter (even if the high ISO is that much better).

[raist3d]

Well to me it boils down (on that M9 comparison) to two things:
- price of M9
- is the X100 "good enough"

Obviously the M9 + lens costing so much more, it better be better. But I think the X100 falls in the "good enough" and maybe the view finder in some ways is indeed better.

Having 12 MP vs 18 MP is only an issue depending on what you are doing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Fuji APS-C sensor of this camera does at least 1 stop better than the Kodak in the M9 and while you can put a 0.95 F Leica lens on the M9, that's $10k USD. For a lot of photographer out there if you can't make a compelling great shot with the X100 (assuming the focal length is what you want) that says light years more about the photographer than the camera.

I think Fuji got the right idea. I wish they had a little system of primes for it. That will probably have to wait for later. I do wish it was smaller but seems small enough.

- Raist

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

Well to me it boils down (on that M9 comparison) to two things:
- price of M9
- is the X100 "good enough"

Obviously the M9 + lens costing so much more, it better be better. But I think the X100 falls in the "good enough" and maybe the view finder in some ways is indeed better.

Hi Ricardo
I hope you're well.
Good points all . . . . but I'm very much aware that the "good enough" argument is one I use when I WANT something, but it's not the one I use to KEEP something

Actually - for me I long since decided (like 2.1/2 years ago) that 24mp was 'good enough' . . . with 18mp and no AA filter doing about the same job. I'm not sure that I want to go back to thinking that 12mp is okay - it's not so much for big pictures (although I do like to print at A2+), more so that one does at least have some leeway for cropping.

all the best

[Derek Zeanah]

Well, I'd call it less a point and shoot, and more an updated Konica Hexar AF. Hopefully the lens will be up to Hexar standards, and they'll follow up with an interchangeable lens version as Konica did with the Hexar RF.

Personally I'm shopping for a travel camera -- something small, portable, and good enough for reasonable enlargements later. I'm kind of torn -- I really like what this camera seems to be, but something like a G2 with a 20/1.7 is cheaper and can also produce very good results. I really like composing in a rangefinder though, and I tend to be more creative visually with limited equipment. Not to say that a rangefinder with a fixed 35mm lens is particularly limiting, but odds are I'll get more compelling results with that than with a camera with a zoom. And I doubt I would carry the G2 on vacation with only one prime lens, when the kit lens is available...

I think 12 megapixels will be suitable for my purposes. My DSLR is still a Fuji S5Pro so direct experience is limited, but I downloaded a D300s raw file from DPReview and had it printed at 20x30 after minimal processing and found the results acceptable. If the X100 is as good then there won't be a problem at all.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is color. I've been very impressed with the colors out of my Fuji S2 and S5 cameras, and the biases I've seen in the sample X100 images suggest that this camera will be working from the same palette. Apparently the sample images were shot in "Provia" mode so apparently we'll have some flexibility in how JPEGs are rendered -- same as with the S5 Pro.

It looks quite compelling. I can't wait to see more images from the camera, hopefully shot by someone other than the guy who shot the demo images Fuji put on their web site.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

... I couldn't resist putting my name down for one at my dealer. ...

Magpie Syndrome wins again! ]'-)

Originally Posted by jonoslack

... 12mp ought to be enough, it's just that sometimes it's really nice to be able to do an a1 print. As for M9 comparisons - it may be much better from an ergonomic point of view - might be.
However I don't honestly think that a 12mp sensor with an AA filter and a relatively cheap lens (good though it may be) is likely to compete very well from an image point of view with a summicron, an 18mp CCD and no AA filter (even if the high ISO is that much better).

All I have to do is go to an exhibition of John Isaac's wildlife photos, printed to 20x26", made with an Olympus E-1 (5 Mpixel, one of the heaviest antialiasing filters in the business) to know this is silliness.

BTW: Why would you say that the X100's lens is a "cheap lens"? I bet the lens is half the manufacturing cost of the camera. That's not cheap, unless you only consider expensive those things that carry a red dot price level.

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by Derek Zeanah

Well, I'd call it less a point and shoot, and more an updated Konica Hexar AF. Hopefully the lens will be up to Hexar standards, and they'll follow up with an interchangeable lens version as Konica did with the Hexar RF.

Yes, the Hexar AF is another good comparison except it didn't have a full manual mode that the X100 will. Let's call the X100 the digital offspring of the Hexar AF and the Contax G2...

[tom in mpls]

Unboxing video here.

[jonoslack]

Hi Godfrey

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Magpie Syndrome wins again! ]'-)

Absolutely . . . although I do clean out the unused / unwanted cameras. Currently I have 3 cameras too many (out of 6 :-) - it's time for another ebay trip soon!

Originally Posted by Godfrey

All I have to do is go to an exhibition of John Isaac's wildlife photos, printed to 20x26", made with an Olympus E-1 (5 Mpixel, one of the heaviest antialiasing filters in the business) to know this is silliness.

I'm sure that they're splendid - and I have some good 24" prints made with the E1 as well (at least I think they're good, and they don't have technical issues!) . . . . . . but birds are just one subject, and different subjects have different requirements of sensors - Landscape in particular often needs more resolution - of course, one could go medium format, but actually, an 18mp file with no AA filter will do a detailed foliage image at that kind of size that you can eyeball from a foot. 5mp with an AA filter won't . . . and nor will 12mp with an aa filter. Whether you need that kind of thing is, of course, your own call.

Originally Posted by Godfrey

BTW: Why would you say that the X100's lens is a "cheap lens"? I bet the lens is half the manufacturing cost of the camera. That's not cheap, unless you only consider expensive those things that carry a red dot price level.

I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)

Ah...you mean inexpensive, not poor quality. I took the wrong meaning also.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

Ah...you mean inexpensive, not poor quality. I took the wrong meaning also.

Thank you Tom - I certainly didn't for a second mean poor quality. I didn't even mean that it'll be poorer quality than a Leica 35mm.

[Show Performance]

More images up here: http://www.popco.net/zboard/zboard.p...esc=asc&no=566

One shot is at 6400. Looks very good but you can't view at full resolution, so....

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

John Isaac's wildlife photos... I'm sure that they're splendid - and I have some good 24" prints made with the E1 as well (at least I think they're good, and they don't have technical issues!) . . . . . . but birds are just one subject ...

Why did you pick birds? And, ironically, right there you have one of the hardest subjects that requires tremendous detail resolution to capture well. Moreso than landscape in my opinion.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

... I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)

This camera is aiming at the market of people who might like to have a Leica M design camera but either cannot afford or cannot rationalize the cost of buying one. If I may interpret the market thrust, it is a camera designed to allow one to buy a Leica M type design and user interface, and Leica M type quality, at a fraction the price. What is given up to achieve the price is the red dot itself and interchangeable lenses, not quality. At least that's what I hope Fuji's achieved. ;-)

"Cheap" is the wrong word, it connotes poor quality. As Tom suggested, you meant "inexpensive". Of course, hopefully!, people spending three times the cost of the X100 on a Leica lens ought to expect that lens to perform better. But it's difficult to say whether that is true or not, given that all we have to work with are samples that someone else made.

(I'm ahead of you on jettisoning the unused cameras at this point. Aside from the box or three of older film camera stuff, all I have are the E-5 and E-1 at this point, and a couple of lenses I'd bought for the G1 that I haven't put on the market yet. I'm using both the E-5 and E-1 all the time ... My interest in the X100 is that it fits a situation like this morning, where something compact, minimal, with just a fast wide lens would have been a nicer thing to carry.)

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

This camera is aiming at the market of people who might like to have a Leica M design camera but either cannot afford or cannot rationalize the cost of buying one. If I may interpret the market thrust, it is a camera designed to allow one to buy a Leica M type design and user interface, and Leica M type quality, at a fraction the price. What is given up to achieve the price is the red dot itself and interchangeable lenses, not quality. At least that's what I hope Fuji's achieved. ;-)

But isn't that exactly what Jono said?

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

But isn't that exactly what Jono said?

Perhaps it is what he meant and could be interpreted as such, but it wasn't what he said. I think I was significantly more specific.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

"Cheap" is the wrong word, it connotes poor quality.

Well - here I beg to differ - I meant it to indicate a cheaper price, I think I was quite explicit about that:

Originally Posted by jonoslack

a relatively cheap lens (good though it may be)

I don't see how you can understand that I was trying to suggest poor quality?

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Why did you pick birds? And, ironically, right there you have one of the hardest subjects that requires tremendous detail resolution to capture well. Moreso than landscape in my opinion.

I stand corrected Godfrey - I understand that anything over 5mp is just silliness.

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Perhaps it is what he meant and could be interpreted as such, but it wasn't what he said. I think I was significantly more specific.

ditto, as above

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Well - here I beg to differ - I meant it to indicate a cheaper price, I think I was quite explicit about that ...

After your initial statement, yes.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

...I understand that anything over 5mp is just silliness. ...

Don't be ridiculous. The context was a statement about 18 Mpixel regards 12 Mpixels, a linear resolution difference, all else being equal, of less than 15%. In hard numbers, that means that if the 18Mpixel camera could resolve 25 LP@mm, the 12 Mpixel camera can resolve about 21-22 LP@mm ... this is hardly a huge difference.

The intent of my statement is to say that putting hard Megapixel numbers as the base criteria for what can make a beautiful, large print is a vapid, meaningless exercise in techno babble. Obviously there are times when more resolution is important — just as obviously most of the time we don't make A2 sized prints. When a huge print is the target AND you need the utmost in resolution to make the subject sing, pick the equipment you need to do that job best, which likely will not be either a Fuji X100 or a Leica M9 although either can likely make photographs that can be printed very large with excellent quality.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The intent of my statement is to say that putting hard Megapixel numbers as the base criteria for what can make a beautiful, large print is a vapid, meaningless exercise in techno babble.

Thank you Godfrey - I think I said something about AA filters as well, but perhaps that got lost in my techno babble.

[Knorp]

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Thank you Godfrey - I think I said something about AA filters as well, but perhaps that got lost in my techno babble.

It's the same thing.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

It's the same thing.

sorry

[TechIV]

I just pulled the trigger (although I imagine it will take a while).

I was looking at the GXR as I love the results I have been seeing, but still worry about AF speed, plus I'd need to buy the viewfinder. (Ricoh: 917+257=1174 ---that price difference is negligible).

I see this as a digital Hexar AF... though the bokeh looked nicer on the hexar :-/ The X100 is good looking for a digital, but not near as attractive as the Contax G2 which I find to be one of the top 2 prettiest cameras (along with the Leica MP). I'd love to have a Contax T3 equiv, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

On a another note, I don't even look at the DPReview forums if I can help it... it's like a bunch of whiny children over there. Fred Miranda is decent, but this form is easily one of the best on the web.

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by TechIV

...:-/ The X100 is good looking for a digital, but not near as attractive as the Contax G2 which I find to be one of the top 2 prettiest cameras (along with the Leica MP). I'd love to have a Contax T3 equiv, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Amen to the digital T3!

And I fully agree that the G2 is one of the finest looking cameras ever made. I understand Fuji's decision to go with the retro look but I would have preferred a more modern take on the rangefinder, something more akin to the G2!

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

I would have preferred a more modern take on the rangefinder...

I have been surprised by the conservatism of digital camera design. Since digital cameras are no longer constrained by the film camera's film-spool->image frame->takeup-spool linear arrangement, the rectangular shape is not required. Perhaps it remains the best way to grip with both hands, but I would like to see some radical new ideas.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

I have been surprised by the conservatism of digital camera design. Since digital cameras are no longer constrained by the film camera's film-spool->image frame->takeup-spool linear arrangement, the rectangular shape is not required. Perhaps it remains the best way to grip with both hands, but I would like to see some radical new ideas.

Every time someone tries a radical new idea in camera body design, it either doesn't work or it doesn't sell. Usually both, which one comes first is a toss up.

I think the basic shapes of the Leica M for small-format viewfinder cameras and Olympus E-1 for small-format SLR cameras simply work better than the more avante garde design attempts. Form follows function – these cameras are beautiful to my eye because they work well for making photographs.

[tom in mpls]

So it seems it was a happy coincidence that the best ergonomic shape was also perfect for the requirements of film rolls.

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

So it seems it was a happy coincidence that the best ergonomic shape was also perfect for the requirements of film rolls.

Yes, and I certainly wasn't advocating for anything avant garde, simply a more modern take. I really like the design of the Leica X1. I think that is a very good example of modernizing a classic look. It looks to me that the X1 was inspired equally by the Barnack models and the Leica CM yet it feels very fresh.

[tom in mpls]

Another point AGAINST my earlier argument: I hadn't thought about the LCD screen. That requires a big rectangular surface facing the user. OK, I'm on board. The rectangular box it is, then. At least we can ditch the prism hump and the mirror box.

[douglasf13]

Well, the first half of the last decade certainly saw all kinds of interesting camera shapes, but I never cared for them, myself.

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, the first half of the last decade certainly saw all kinds of interesting camera shapes, but I never cared for them, myself.

Was it the esthetics, ergonomics, or images that you didn't care for? If that Konica performed by today's standards of fast focus, high ISO, and a bunch o' pixels, I think it could succeed.

[douglasf13]

Well, the images weren't particularly great, but these were small sensor cameras, so that could be fixed.

Ergonomics, from the little time that I handled such cameras, were fine, but not a marked improvement for me over other more conventional designs. Aesthetics, well I do think they're incredibly ugly, but to each his/her own.

Honestly, in the small camera world, I think the NEX-5 is a nice balance of unique, modern design and ergonomics, but I still lust a bit after this X100 for shallow reasons. Well, actually, it's the hybrid viewfinder that really peaks my X100 interest, more so than the looks.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, the first half of the last decade certainly saw all kinds of interesting camera shapes, but I never cared for them, myself.

..

It's funny: the similarly shaped Sony F505/707/717 worked, where the F828 didn't. I think the F828's body portion simply became too large and heavy. With the previous models in this line, you held the camera vary securely and stably via the lens and used the body as an articulated control surface ... it worked brilliantly. The F828 went all out on the body and that made it awkward and clumsy in the hand. (Aside from its horrendous imaging problems ... most of them ruined every photo they made with edge blooming unless you were shooting with an IR-pass filter, capturing IR photos. I tried two of them: they made great IR cameras, didn't even have to bother turning on the night-shot mode, just stick an 89a or 87c filter on there. But for normal daylight work, purple blooming everywhere was the rule.)

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

Yes, and I certainly wasn't advocating for anything avant garde, simply a more modern take. I really like the design of the Leica X1. I think that is a very good example of modernizing a classic look. It looks to me that the X1 was inspired equally by the Barnack models and the Leica CM yet it feels very fresh.

The X1 is beautiful but, having handled it, the body is too petite for what I prefer. It doesn't afford enough grip. For those with smaller hands, it should be fine. The X100 has taller, more usable gripping surface from the pictures. That makes a big difference for those of us with larger hands.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The X1 is beautiful but, having handled it, the body is too petite for what I prefer. It doesn't afford enough grip. For those with smaller hands, it should be fine. The X100 has taller, more usable gripping surface from the pictures. That makes a big difference for those of us with larger hands.

I don't have particularly large hands, but I find that my leather Ciesta case provides just enough of an extra grip to the NEX-5 to be worthwhile. I would imagine such a thing would help on the X1 as well.



Or, of course, there is the add-on grip for the X1:

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I don't have particularly large hands, but I find that my leather Ciesta case provides just enough of an extra grip to the NEX-5 to be worthwhile. I would imagine such a thing would help on the X1 as well.

Certainly, workarounds are always possible. I just like it when the basic shape works perfectly to begin with. ;-)

The Luigi half-case does look lovely.

[m3photo]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

I have been surprised by the conservatism of digital camera design. Since digital cameras are no longer constrained by the film camera's film-spool->image frame->takeup-spool linear arrangement, the rectangular shape is not required. Perhaps it remains the best way to grip with both hands, but I would like to see some radical new ideas.

Or just the one hand.
Haven't the "usual" camera makers realized that people with phone-cameras just hold it out in front of them and fire the shutter with their thumb?. The right index finger shutter button on cameras that only have an LCD to frame with; at arm's length, is ridiculously unergonomic. Besides, since Panasonic can come up with touch-sensitive LCD's, others could surely keep the traditional shutter button and offer an alternative thumb-press option on the back of or next to the LCD where the thumb falls naturally when gripping a small camera at arm's length. Ergonomically, this firm grip is considerably lessened by having to then curve the index finger above the top edge and lightly press the traditional shutter button.
This is one of the aspects of modern digital camera design flaws that I am absolutely astounded at.