The X100 Will Be Perfect

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.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

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."

Comments

[Albano]

I thought about it the first day it was announced. It's easy: autofocus will suck, and manual focus will be a pain, so most "serious" users will discard it from day one, not being responsive enough.

[Markus Puustinen]

I'll bet it will be awesome! It's just a shame that it's so ugly. The whole retro look thing is getting old.

[Paddy C]

I'm quite confident the X100 will be a great camera. But it certainly won't be a great camera for everyone.

I agree about the lack of IS. I think that's a mistake and one Fuji has time to correct. Maybe?

My guess is that many of the people who have been crying for a viewfinder for all these years will be disappointed in some way with it. And it will be a "dealbreaker" or some such nonsense.

[David Miller]

Ah, Mike, Mike, Mike ..... "perfection?" It's silly to even think about it: the best you might get is the perfect camera with the perfect lens for a given photographer at a few fleeting moments in a lifetime. The rest of the time it's always about compromise (although a skilled and experienced photographer might make those compromises quickly and instinctively without being aware of it or thinking about it as "compromise."

In my years of building stringed instruments I quickly abandoned the notion of "the perfect guitar" and strove instead to make the best guitar I could for a particular guitarist at a particular time in her or his career. And even if, after much discussion and audition and adaptation, I got close to it, the instrument would still be at its best only for a particular range of music. The rest was compromise ... and served to keep life interesting.

Thanks for your columns. They never fail to invoke thought.

-- David Miller

[Martin]

So adding video is a strike against perfection? I don't think that I'd use that feature very often, but sometimes it is nice to have and it will surely help Fuji to sell more X100s...

[Player]

Mike, I doubt that perfection is the goal of camera makers. I hate being so cynical, but what would be the point of upgrading to the X200 if the X100 was perfect?

[D Carnagey]

A bit off topic, but a pet peeve of mine is that while "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" is true, camera companies could allow customers to get much closer to what they want if they would use an open operating system that would allow apps, hacks, etc. They would not even have to do the upfront work and could then include the most popular on newer cameras!!!

[Alex H.]

Mike says: "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."

Alex says: Yes, camera makers do have to please a wide variety of customers. I suppose that's why you can buy pink cameras. But oftentimes camera makers do exceptionally silly things. Take the Nikon D7000. Why give this "semi-pro compact" RAW functionality and make it so slow it's not even usable? Or the Leica X1. Did they really think people wouldn't care about decent autofocus on what though very expensive still is a point-and-shoot? (I do and I have been a manual focussing M user for ages... To get to the point: I am sure the X100 will NOT be perfect. It WILL have some glaring omission/problem/sillyness.

Why else would we lust for an X200?

Regards,
Alex

[bharat singh]

Perfect. Hell no. Good enough, maybe again depending on what you want. I would suggest to anyone buying a camera to make a checklist of features that matter the most to You, and then compare the camera models against that criteria.
Too often we get caught in spec sheets and lose sight of what is important to us. Newer and better is good as long as it helps You. Otherwise its just something to fret over.
For me the list would be dedicated controls for aperture, shutter, focus and centre weighted meter, so an x100 works for me.

[JohnMFlores]

I don't think that I've ever held a perfect camera in my hands. But that doesn't stop me from taking photos...

p.s. - shutter lag is 10 milliseconds.

[Paul Crouse]

They can't make a perfect camera. If they did, they couldn't sell you one next year.

[Jeff]

Perfection (in general, not X100 specifically) for me? A weather sealed Leica-like device (rangefinder not required) at a lower price point.

In other words...a simple, but elegant high IQ device (great viewfinder and sensor with no or weak anti-alias filter) for attaching a perfect 35mm equivalent prime lens. Quiet, ergonomic (physically and interactively) and weather sealed (including lens).

Rangefinder not required, but ability to quickly and effectively see the subject and focus manually (even if AF override) essential.

KISS. Designed for photographers, not marketers.

[Nicholas Condon]

Mike, I am quite surprised that the lack of IS isn't a dealbreaker for you, after your comments about your GF1.

"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'm not quite sure why cameras don't give users the option to reprogram every button. A camera with a fully customizable interface (perhaps along the lines of Thom Hogan's "modular, programmable, communicating" camera) might be a route to make everybody happy. Wouldn't it be great if you completely customize your interface, so some niggling little details that make you crazy (no button for something you do frequently, button for something you never want to do in a place where it gets accidentally pressed all the time, too much or not enough information in the viewfinder, etc.) can be fixed? Ctein could retask or disable the "white balance" button, Thom (and I) could retask or disable the "RAW" button, manual-focus aficionados could retask or disable anything related to autofocus, Mike could retask or disable anything related to video, and we could all permanently delete the "art" filters and pretend they never existed.

[Max]

Not easy at all. It's perfectly understandable that in this shifting market the ones who reap the big profit are the ones that sell one after another new glittering gizmo. Products like this one run long races, and even if they become winners in the end they bleed a lot of money halfway.

[Lubo]

I know this has been debated (alright: discussed) on TOP before... but I have to ask you, Mike, why should you care if a camera has video or not... (so long as it does not clutter up the user interface, and it should not have to)?

I love my K20... but had it video as well I would be using that every now and again. As others have pointed out, it does not really add much in terms of R&D dollars: it's all software and can reuse much previous development... and it makes the camera sellable to a larger number of customers. E.g. that is one of the short-comings of the K20 to me, and I don't often want to take anything but a still photograph. My wife was shocked last summer on holiday overseas that my excellent camera could not take video.

[Anders]

What is the specification of the video function?
HD video output is 1280 x 720 pixels at 24 frames per second with stereo sound recording. Aperture Priority AE can be used whilst shooting movies.

(from http://www.finepix-x100.com/)

[Tim]

I don't understand being against video anymore. I mean, I was at first too, but it became a huge "why not?". Its a feature that is easy to add and not be in the way.
I've rarely used my 7D's video feature(once at a concert I think) but none of the buttons get in my way and it has its own menus that are easy to ignore.
Hey, if I ever want it I guess its good to know it is there.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It doesn't have interchangeable lenses, which puts it a huge step down from perfect in my world. I guess it's the price, or maybe the pretensions (I mean that last in a good way; it aspires to be a serious camera); I don't really downgrade a $300 P&S for having the one fixed lens, but it bugs me on the X100.

[doug d]

It will probably be perfect for somebody. A few people even liked those slow-as-molasses Sigmas.

[Ed Buziak]

Unfortunately the closer to "perfection" any camera or lens becomes – they're just items to most people, but of course it applies to most things – the less opportunity the manufacturer has to make additional profit with an extended line-up. We'll never again see the "then normal" lifespan of 10-to-12 years experienced by the Nikon F and F2 product lines, much to the relief of Nikon's accountants and re-sellers [translated into American—retailers. --Mike the Ed., not Ed].

A majority of end-users don't seem to care that much about "perfection" because they enjoy spending money... and I bet statements have already been posted on forums about waiting for the next X200 because it will have more pixels, hopefully be full-frame, with Leica thread lens fitting, etc.

However, I think your 60% rating sounds a bit low... even though I would mark it down, not up, for having sissy-IS.

[Eyal Gurevitch]

True.

Perfection is achieved slowly.
In the compact camera world, the best example is Canon's G series. The G12 is, in my opinion, perfect.
Then came Nikon's P7000 and tried to copy a success. It landed pretty close, but - as they say - no cigar.
Another point to think about is how easy it is to improve an existing model by using firmware updates. such is the case of the P7000 too - with the new update eliminating the biggest bug in the ointment - the slow RAW writing times.

Will the X100 be perfect? It's hard to say, but it seems that Fuji will have to mess up pretty badly in order to incorporate such a flaw that will ruin the party, and will not be fixable by firmware.

[Mitch Alland]

Mike,

They say, "The best is the enemy of the good", which, I suppose would be the result ofFuji Film trying to please too many people and achieving "feature bloat". Also, keep in mind that a good camera maker (such as Ricoh for their top-of-the-line GRDx cameras), upgrades the firmware to fix issues or to offer improvements. So, if Fuji Film comes up with something just "good enough" for the niche market that is interested in this camera — and it is a niche market despite the never-ending marathon thread on the Rangefinder Forum — it may really be good enough if the company keeps on upgrading the firmware.

As for me, having been shooting with the Ricoh GRD3 and GXR with a the APS-C sensor module, I just put money down for a beautiful, black Hasselblad 903-SWC (no light meter, no rangefinder) that I'm piking up in Paris on the 27th and hence am facing a partial return to film. Funny thing is, as I'm contemplating which Jobo tank to get and whether to use Rodinal to develop Tri-X, I keep on thinking of starting to shoot with my M6 again...

—Mitch/Bangkok

[latent_image]

I'm well beyond caring about the the Fuji X100 or any other electronic photo gadget. Even though I've only owned (and then sold) one DSLR and a couple of unremarkable digital point-and-shoots, for me the past decade has still meant a considerable investment in computers, software, scanning capability, printers, and TIME. The result is that I can almost make a B&W digital print as good as my darkroom prints. Now I'm really wishing I'd devoted this last decade towards honing my film camera and darkroom chops and side-stepping digital altogether.

The sole valuable lesson I learned during this past decade came from Ctein, and that is that a properly set up SLR can deliver more accurate focus than a rangefinder. It's true, and I now send my SLRs to a repairman who does a brilliant job of fine tuning camera focus. (Ctein actually wrote this information for the Nov. 1994 issue of Camera & Darkroom, but I noticed it this year.)

As far as the general state of photography is concerned, the last decade hasn't impressed me. The decline of well paying magazine and newspaper photography--to my mind--has made things much more difficult for those most likely to produce the kinds of photos (documentary and editorial) I value. It takes money to develop talent, and I don't see that there's much money flowing to this kind of talent in our current digital age.

In terms or working tools, we've had brilliant cameras since the 1970's. If you're good, there's nothing about about a Nikon F3 or a Pentax LX or a Canon T90 that will prevent you from being a great photographer. I'm sure the same applies to some of today's digital wonders. But what will get in the way is lack of work (i.e., paid opportunity) and distracted attention on all the stuff that doesn't matter (e.g., a myriad of electronic bells and whistles).

A $1000 for a Fuji X100? It does no harm. Still, I am fairly confident that skills and vision make the photographer, and that someone who has those and a 35-year old Canonet QL17 GIII will run circles around most people who buy that $1000 Fuji X100.

[Ed]

Well if they send me a camera a functional design and lets say 15.000 dollars, I would test it for them methodically (15.000 buys a month of test time at my facility). And I keep the camera of course :-)!

Greetings, Ed (ISEB Certified Test Engineer)

[SeanG]

The AF is not a huge issue. Good or bad, I'm sure it will be fine for me. I'm interested in using this as a "regular" camera. I.e. no bag, no peripherals, no nada. Just a camera and a pocket for parties and the street.

The things I'm concerned about.
• Non view-finder shooting. Can I use this without putting it up to my eye/face?
• Will the lens be fast and good enough to provide decent bokeh and subject-isolation for candids?
• Is the camera as small as possible while still providing decent ergonomics?

If this is the case, then I may sell a number of my Sony/Minolta G and CZ lenses so I can purchase the Fuji.

[psu]

http://tleaves.com/2004/11/17/the-latent-object/

[psu]

Also, there were never any perfect non-electronic cameras either. In fact, for the most part I think the newer stuff is more usable.

[Andrew Burday]

For me, the fatal flaw in the X100 is that it doesn't come with a pony. See, my niece wants a pony and I want a semi-compact digital camera with a nice optical viewfinder. The X100 could have been perfect for our requirements, but stupid Fuji left out the pony.

Seriously, things I want to know about the X100:

1. Responsiveness, especially autofocus.
2. Price. (For sure, not rumors)
3. Real-world, production-model usability of the VF.
4. Third-party RAW support. The X100 site says something to the effect that support is expected within months of the camera's release. Combined with what Ctein told us, that's worrisome.

Of course I also want to know about lens, sensor, etc, but the above are the things I'm concerned about. I'll be surprised if the lens isn't nice.

[Gordon Lewis]

Thanks for articulating the thoughts that have been congealing in my head about the X100. Imaginary cameras are almost always, if not "perfect," then without significant flaws--but only from the perspective of the person who is doing the imagining. That's why I find it hard to get too interested in the X100 until it's actually available for sale--and then only if it offers something I can't get from what I've already got.

[ShadZee]

I've given up on perfect cameras. AND, I've placed a pre-order on Fuji X100.

The best part about the X100; I have to hold off purchasing the K-5 until April, or hopefully much longer ;-)

[Jamie Pillers]

Dear Fujifilm management:
I'd rather give you my thousand bucks for the X99. The X99 has no LCD, only shoots RAW (but its not called RAW... its not called anything); it has no video capability; it has IS.

You can call it the "X100 Pro" if you like.
Regards,
A photographer with $1000 burning a hole in his pocket

[Mark]

I really do like the idea of the X100 (with the same sort of enthusiam as this little fella: http://bit.ly/bluuBU ) and will definitely be checking it out once it hits the stores.

My only real fears for dealbreakers are the Manual Focus and viewfinder performance, though I have to say the viewfinder looks like it wont be a problem, well at least I hope it wont.

On the 4/3rd offerings those 2 issues were always the problem, the absolutely horrible auto zoom on MF with the Olympus, made me put it down straight away. I like to be able to focus and compose at the same time.

I.S. would be nice, but with the high iso offering, it probably wont be an issue for me, Mike's mileage varies as we know :) let's hope the iso performance doesn't make it an issue!

If Fuji release a longer lens version as well, something getting towards an 85mm equivalent, I'll be a very happy man and would seriously consider selling up the DSLRs I have to pay for a 2 lens/camera kit.

[Jim]

I don't see where the lack of in-body IS hurts this camera. If it had a zoom, or a longer lens, I could understand the benefit.

I have a Nikon system with many VR lenses. To be honest, I think the VR has ruined more pictures than it has helped.

Video...I think it's great. If you're making any multimedia presentations, or even personal dvds of your shots to view on the home TV, video really enhances the show.

I give Fuji credit for at least giving this a shot.

[Jim]

The X100 will not be perfect because it will have 10 millisecond shutter lag, or is that 100 millisecond shutter lag?

[mark]

Actually thinking about the issue of IS there is a very good reason for including it other than its anti shake abilities. As the camera is not weather sealed and considering this will be a camera that is used a helluva lot by those that buy it, and slung into bags and coat pockets it's going to get dirty and dusty. So with no weather sealing dust can get in.

I've had 2 compacts that both got dust on the sensor with no way of cleaning them. Inclusion of IS will at least allow some way of cleaning a dirty sensor other than camera surgery.

Hopefully it won't be too much of an issue as there's no zoom to act as a dust sucker and a good build quality would go a long way to helping combat dust. But for a camera that will see so much use it would be good to have, or be weather sealed.

[Harry Lime]

The main flaw that I see is the lack of a focus scale on the lens, which makes zone focusing difficult without consulting a chart. Yes, there is a focus distance indicator in the viewfinder, but as far as I can tell there is no distance scale that indicates where your focus begins and ends.

[aizan]

the deal breaker for me is going to be the way you prefocus on this thing. if you can't quickly change the focus distance by feel without looking at the camera, what's the point? the manual focus ring doesn't have a focus tab, and there's probably no room to put one in because of the aperture tabs. manual focus looks like one of those fly-by-wire jobs that spins around and around. i really, really hope fuji borrows notes from ricoh on how to implement snap mode.

i get the feeling that fuji's designers came up with the hybrid viewfinder first and threw the camera together as an afterthought. they didn't say "hey, look! there are a few people who want a compact digital camera with a built-in optical viewfinder. let's make the camera they've been waiting for!" first of all, i don't care about the EVF functionality of the hybrid viewfinder. then there's the matter of fuji being surprised...not exactly confidence inspiring. the jumbled up retro style? atrocious. they didn't even plan on a black version? what's that built-in flash for? something is amiss! the worst thing is that all of this public approval has likely convinced the designers that their slapdash camera hit the jackpot.

the best thing that can come from all this is that ricoh puts out another gxr body with a built-in viewfinder and a 35/2 camera unit.

[TS Wu]

@ Nicholas

The fully programmable camera sorta exists- on the iPhone it's the Hipstamatic, or True HDR, or...[name your fave photog app].

Imagine the iPad 2 with a camera. I'm sure someone will come up with a box camera app that simulates using a view camera.

[Danny Chatham]

Chances are if you take beautiful photographs with the equipment you have now
you will continue to take beautiful photographs with your next imperfect camera,
yes,it really is that simple.

[ted]

the lack of IS is one of the things that bothers me,since they have it on other cameras

[Patrick Perez]

What makes me interested in this camera (most likely as a purely intellectual excercise, BTW, being at liberty from employment since May '10) is the lens Fuji has designed. Now I know we haven't seen any photos from it, but looking at the cross-section shows a very ambitious lens. Fuji have established that they can make stellar optics on their serious cameras in the past and I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect that the lens system is about half the cost of the X100's bill of materials.

I am indifferent to the retro styling of the camera. It 'looks' like a film camera, but digital cameras have freedoms from a design standpoint from film cameras that camera designers have been loathe to enjoy (I suspect because camera buyers have been loathe to buy in quantity any designs that differ from what they are accustomed to).

For those worried the Silkypix RAW conversion software will be poor and want the better conversion 3rd party software provides, I'd suggest delaying purchase of the X100 until such good conversion alternatives exist. Don't send the message to Fuji that poor in-house software is acceptable.

Mike wants this to be his DMD (a worthy desire). What I want the market to provide is a digital Stylus Epic . I don't know of any digital that matches that little guy (although now it is amazing how big it seems, compared to current digicams.)

Patrick

[mani]

They already made the perfect camera.
It's called an M6.

[Mike Johnston]

Mani,
You got that right. As long as you put a 35mm Summicron on it. [g]

Mike.

[David Stubbs]

When film reigned, when "capture" was something that happened to fugitives; not photographs, camera lust was so easy. Every maker had a flagship model that was pretty clearly the best they had to offer and potential buyers saw it that way. A person either bought that one or chose whatever rung on the ladder that could be afforded and probably still wished for the Best One. The one purchased brought happiness.

Sort of sounds like today with one big exception: The Camera That Will Make You Happy hasn't been built yet. That rung is clearly marked NO STEP. Sure, the top of the line is still there but the price and bulk penalties have increased greatly. Most people don't wish to pay extra for the privilege of hauling a monster camera rig unless they're being paid to. Even then, not so much.

Now, we face choices between cameras that probably cost as much as your first car or whatever reasonable camera that has the least wrong with it. Whatever camera that leaves out the fewest features that it should obviously have had. Whatever camera that isn't bloated with what you don't want.

Yes, yes, I know that "obvious" is a red flag of a word. But come on, who hasn't mentally cobbled together a really winning camera from the good parts of several existing cameras? I expect those dream cameras would resemble each other more than differ. For instance, if you want a viewfinder, it should be a good one. I realize that what can be offered is rapidly changing and people want different things. What bugs me is that a given camera comes with four great features and four sub-standard ones. Why can't there be cameras with better balanced specs? Too many cameras do something horribly for everything they do well.

Now, to put myself firmly on thin ice, I submit that unclear choices in the marketplace must be good for sales. Unease and dissatisfaction make people seek relief by trying another solution. I know that I've bought more cameras in the last ten years than in the 23 years before them (those 33 years as a working photographer). I have used high and middle grade equipment as has been called for by the work. No suggestion of Dark Forces at work here. More optimistic to see it as immature product segment and decisions by committee. My grasp of the results are much better than that of the causes. As Megapixel Madness has slowed, I hope the Feature and Function Fracas will settle into a better place. I want to be happy again.

[Ludovic]

What struck me as somehow... off wasn't the omission of lens stabilization, but the supposed rationale behind it offered by Fuji, that, in effect, there was no need for IS because the lens was a fast one.

Um, yeah. Because we only ever shoot at f2. Rrrright.

[dave]

I like the look but it will suck.
probably will have issues with;

-no removable lens.
-slow lens. (remember the cheap canonet had a 1.7 fstop.)
-some kind of image problems
-slow overall or crappy menu
-ridiculous price.
-image quality will be less than a dslr or a canonet of old.

[John Robison]

I already have the 'perfect' camera. Made in July 1960, an original Olympus Pen VF camera with a 2 blade 5 speed Copal shutter that makes only a slight *tick* sound when released. A 28mm f3.5 scale focused lens and a .5X VF with a projected bright frame thats every bit a brilliant as my Leica M4-2 except it does not fade out when you shift your eye. It will also accept the latest flexable, interchangeable silver halide sensors. Like the Fuji it's not full frame but I rather like the 4 to 3 aspect ratio and portrait orientation with the camera held normaly.

[Poagao]

Tough crowd. You really can't find a single camera that will make you happy? It seems like an embarrassment of riches to me.

I predict that the X100, once released and probably even before, will be said to be "blown away" by X, Y and Z cameras by commenters due to various and "dealbreakers" discovered after three photos of someone's cat.

[ashok]

i think the basic concept of the fuji X100 is excellent. its something many of the older generation of photographers hav been looking for. As for me..i plan to get one. what will make me happier is if fuji put a shutter speed dial on top (speeds 1-1/4000) which i only need to turn to set shutter speed and similarly a aparture dial on the lens with option to use either shutter priority or aparture or go fully auto.. a rangefinder viewer and a cf card... in other words a olympus 35SP or a canon QL17 in digital...both were great cameras...

[Peter Cameron]

I'm hoping for "imperfect".
Then I can get a lightly used X100 at a really good price because some early adopter couldn't live with the imperfection.
That may sound a little mercenary, but I really enjoy the Sigma DP1 I got for 1/3 of MSRP because the first owner didn't like it after 100 shots.

[Paul Mc Cann]

Its just photographic jewellery. Its raison d'etre is its retro look. Thats the only real reason to want one. You like the look of it. Not because of its capabilities or size as it appears to have no real advantages there.
But why don't they just produce a true film type camera but with a chip in it. Handle just like film cameras of old. Include a good rangefinder. Click stop aperture ring. Proper focusing ring with scale and depth of field markings etc. Just swap out the film chamber for a chip and the elecronics.

Paul Mc Cann

[Mike Johnston]

Paul McCann,
I disagree. The X100's viewfinder might or might not prove to be pleasing and/or useful, but it's undeniably innovative.

Mike

[Dogman]

The lack of IS is something of a disappointment but I lived without it for decades. It's not a deal-breaker for me but there are other points to consider, especially since the X100 is only a promise and the reality may prove the promise to be ephemeral.

Fixed lens vs interchangeable lens...? For several years I used two M6 bodies, a 35mm Summicron on one and a 50mm Summicron on the other. I had other lenses, but rarely strayed from the two Summicrons. On balance, the Leicas were virtual fixed-lens cameras.

While I've been patiently waiting for the X100 to arrive, I've also been contemplating exactly what it will do for me that buying a second Olympus E-P body won't do. Right now, I have an E-P1 with 17mm and 25mm Oly lenses, optical finders that work acceptably well with each lens and a 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter for the 25mm. While the Oly is "only" a 4/3 format, I'm fine with the IQ and seldom need high ISO. Having cut my teeth on Tri-X, pushing it to 1600 and sometimes 3200 and using various speed-enhancing film developers, the images out of the 4/3 system are more than acceptable at equivalent ISOs at those rare times I ever do need the speed.

Furthermore, the Olympus is here-and-now. It's not just a promise.

Just a couple of points I've been contemplating....

[Chirtopher Lane]

Please people, just everyone wait. Right now the X100 is a vaporcam. We have been down this road many times, but its same as it ever was. Don't shoot first and ask questions later.

[Poagao]

Dogman, I've been kind of wondering the same thing. Apart from the viewfinder on the X100, my E-P1 with the 20mm f1.7 and IBIS does a fine job already, and I have the added ability to use other lenses. It will be up to image quality and response, things that we'll only know about when the X100 finally appears for real, but for now, I'm pretty much set.

[Martin]

I am perfectly happy with X100 specifications so far and I will definitely buy the camera.
However there is one thing that worries me after new Fuji informations on camera.
If I understand it correctly, the filter could be attached only with adapter.
No filter thread on the lens?
Will the adapter be included or will it cost extra money?
Will it be possible to use hood with adapter attached?
Please Fuji let as know.

[jim]

The Fujiguys responded to my query for more information after their X100 update a few days ago. Below are my questions and their response via their YouTube account.

Q. What kind of shutter does the X100 use?

A. Shutter Type = TBD.

Q: Does the X100 have a mic input jack?

A: X100 external mic input = No.

Q. Will I be able use both the lens hood and a 49mm filter at the same time? Just to clarify, here is the wording on the filter thread, which is not clear in regards to my question:

"Yes, 49mm filters can be screwed in using the optional adapter ring. This ring is attached by removing the existing metal lens surround and then screwing the adapter ring into place. A lens hood can also be attached using the same method. Having a 49mm thread ensures that users will be able to purchase most popular third party screw-on filters."

A. Lens hood + Filter = Yes.

Q. I understand this is not a rangefinder camera. However, when in OVF mode, is there any way to manually focus the camera where I can visually confirm focus? I assume as I manually focus the camera I will see the distance scale in the projected distance bar change? When I hit correct focus, as determined by the camera, will I then see an indicator light of some sort appear?

A. Manual Focus Confirmation/Indication = TBD

[Mitch Alland]

When you have eminently usable ISO 1600 and 3200, it's not clear to me why you need image stabilization for a 23mm lens that you should be able to handhold at a shutter speed of 1/20 sec. I have not been impressed with the usefulness of in-camera IS on small cameras, although the in-lens VS system of the Nikon telephoto lenses is excellent, as it presumably is on the Canon ones

Much more important for me is whether there is an AA filter: I would prefer to have none, or at least a very thin one.

This could be a great camera, but I'm not crazy about the retro look, although that can be to some extent mitigated by a black camera option.

—Mitch/Bangkok

[MHMG]

And don't forget, the X100 will suck as a competent camera for travel photography unless it has this feature, too :-).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2OfQdYrHRs

cheers,
Mark

[Borf]

X100PAN. That would be perfection.

Even better, TX-100, following the naming of TX-1 and TX-2 from Fuji instead of Hasselblad X-PAN.