There are two kinds of people in the world—those who like the way cameras look, and those who like to pretend it doesn't matter because they're just tools. (The cameras are tools, I mean, not the photographers who...oh, never mind. I'm mixed up tonight. It's tired and I'm late. Wait....)
Anyway, if you're one of the former group, you probably agree that Fuji makes some pretty great looking cameras. (Oren doesn't agree. He thought the X100—the X100T is the current iteration—is ugly. I don't; I like it a lot.) The lovely thing above is the Fuji X-T1 Graphite Silver, which is $300 more than the regular old black version. It's beautiful, IMO.
It's also smaller in real life than it probably looks onscreen.
With older cameras, when faced with a choice of silver or black, collectors tend to favor more highly whichever is less common. Sometimes that's silver, sometimes it's black.
The X-T1 is not the fastest camera in the world to operate, but it's a lot of fun to use. It encourages you to just go play around with it. I've been enjoying it. Wish I'd gotten that silver one. Though I couldn't have justified the extra cost. They're just tools though, it doesn't matter what they look like.
ADDENDUM: Here's a somewhat more apt size comparison (and notice the similarities of appearance as well):
Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Richard Tugwell (partial comment): "What you can't show of course is the glorious view of the world in front of you that you get with the OM viewfinder, and the wonderful snap-into-focus feeling. (whatever your favourite OM focusing screen is, of course)
"The OM system ergonomics were, and still are, those with which I judge all other cameras."
Mike replies: Me too. The OM-4T was the ultimate camera, flawed only by the harsh grating feel of the film advance lever, no match for the buttery feel of the same control on a Leica M6.
However, the X-T1 viewfinder isn't bad at all, and it can do a lot of things the OM-2n viewfinder can't—for instance, show a brightened view of a dark scene, or superimpose a horizon level, or show focus peaking in manual-focus mode that helpfully turns off and gets itself out of the way when you half-press the shutter button—very nice. And of course you have autofocus on demand as well.
And, directly comparing the two, the X-T1 finder seems just as big, vignettes less, is much brighter, and has a higher eyepoint. The corners are much easier to see. And it's clean enough that it avoids the "TV screen" feel of most EVFs.
I think if you'd compare the two directly you'd agree—the OM2n scores about a high 6 on an absolute scale while the X-T1 just crosses the threshold of a 9. Even putting aside film vs. digital, I'd take the Fuji viewfinder any day—and I'm picky about viewfinders.
TimJayFitz: "I love the way cameras look—that's why I'm sitting in an office with about 80 of them. When I go for a hike or a stroll on vacation I love having one of my vintage cameras loaded with Tri-X—but when I'm shooting an event for money I wouldn't trade the bland looks of my new Canons for anything. Every button is right where it need to be—function over style for sure."