tOP sniffed out an otherwise yet unpublished page about the new and unique viewfinder.
It is clear that Fuji has done everything they could to make this the highest quality camera they could make in a compact form. It will be interesting to see how it lives up to this intention when it's released (I think early in 2011).
(Oooh, it seems it has no image stabilization? That's an unfortunate omission.)
Mike J has a good comment.
"...what do you suppose the chances are that the Fuji X100 will get here and not have some big glaring distressing dismaying stupid flaw in it that ruins the whole thing?"
Gawd yeah. I know!
7 comments:
http://www.zazzle.com/fuji_x100_iphone_case_speckcase-176737538273018636
An iPhone case that makes your phone look like an X100.
I so like the easy control of speed and aperture. That alone has won my respect. Add to that a real viewfinder.
Am I reading this right. The viewfinder is not tied to the focusing of the camera? It's not an SLR and it's not a TLR? The viewfinder is just for composing, and you have to guesstimate the focus? Been a long time since I used a camera like that.
No I'm sure it has autofocus. It could not have such a fast lens, 2.0, and not have accurate focusing.
... But let's see how *fast* the autofocus is. This continues to be a problem with compact cameras, the Lumix cameras are the only ones so far, I think, which have speedy focusing.
.. The Panasonic Lumix Micro Four Thirds cameras to be precise.
'It is clear that Fuji has done everything they could to make this the highest quality camera they could make in a compact form.'
'(Oooh, it seems it has no image stabilization? That's an unfortunate omission.)'
It would seem that the former precludes the latter, though, no? Most places, at least looking at this from a technical viewpoint, view image stabilisation is a mixed blessing, offering images that 'appear' to be sharper to the eye, yet no-where near as sharp as a genuinely sharp image.
It's easy to see where the perceived 'need' for image stabilisation arises though .. people blindly expect megapixels and high prices to miraculously product excellent photographs ... but some degree of SKILL and TALENT is also neccesary, and these qualities cannot be bought in a box.
Look closely enough at many of the hi-res images available online (landscapes, and obvious studio photography tend to be the exception), and you'll find eyes unsharp on a portrait, for example.
OK, I accept that image stabilisation will probably make an image like this look sharper in general terms, but to put it into a camera where the design ethic is apparently technical quality would maybe seem foolish.
Perhaps they believe that the people who would properly appreciate this sort of quality in a camera would also have some of the skills neccesary to use it competently as a very well designed photography 'tool', rather than the latest toy with all the whistles and bells?
The problem, of course, in trying to produce the 'perfect' camera, is that the concept varies widely from person to person ... one person has a camera that produces happy-snaps simply by being pointed in the right direction and pressing the button ... it's perfect for them, but would be completely discounted as a purchase choice by many others.
Hell, at one time, the PERFECT camera(s) for me for a pro-assignment were actually Fuji disposable 35mm waterproof compacts! :-)
You bring up some good points.
I don't see how image stabilization would necessarily be a compromise though. Apart from it might make the camera slightly bigger or more expensive. Technically, it can at least be turned off, if one thinks it degrades image quality at high shutter speeds or on tripod (which I have not found myself).
Every picture does not have to be perfectly sharp either. IS can often bring a street-photography type picture from just blurred to perfectly-usable.
On the other hand, the Panasonic GF1 does not have it either, in body or in the 20mm (40mm-equivalent) lens. And I found I was able to take sharp pictures at 1/15th second, especially if I took a couple to choose from. I didn't think I could, from old experience. So I can live without IS.
... Especially with a 35mm-e lens. Long lenses... mmmm... I dunno.
Post a Comment