So—idle thought—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?
At this point, that's my worry. It's so easy to project perfection—even just adequacy—on yet-to-come cameras. We read some of the specs and intended features, and our minds fill in the rest. "Surely it will have [desired feature] and of course [desired feature]," we think, sometimes semi-consciously. Then it arrives, and something you want and assumed would be there is missing, or some blatant flaw that screws up the camera for you is present, like a giant wart on a pleasant face.
At this point I've revised my estimate upward...I think the chances the X100 will be good enough are hovering around 60%. That's high, given my long experience of letdowns. (It doesn't have IS and it does have video, so two strikes against "perfection" already, in my book.)
There is no longer any such thing as perfect, in the electronic-camera age. But it's not easy being a cameramaker these days, not easy at all. You have to please enough of the people to make the product a sales success, and yet every potential customer wants some slightly different thing. And the plethora of features on today's cameras just means it's greatly more possible to get the mix wrong for any given potential buyer.
I like what Fuji is saying about the X100 so far. But "we'll see." Same as it ever was.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Jon: "The X100 will be perfect but the X200 will be better."