Fuji X100 OR a cup of coffee and a cream cake


I don't own a Fuji X100, but have noticed potential owners concerns regarding the limitations of only having a 35mm option
for a lens without a zoom.
Well, I keep an old 'toy' device in my car for emergencies.
It's called a Kodak Easyshare C310 and can currently be purchased on fleabay for the price of a cup of coffee and a cream cake :)

I used it last week when a couple of horses popped across to say 'hello' in the company car park.
After taking the shots I realised that the 'toy' had a few things in common with the X100 :rolleyes:
1. It's a digital camera
2. It's about the same size as the X100
3. It sports a fixed 35mm equivelent lens - Plastic I think
4. It also has video ( all be it silent movies :biggrin:)
5. It has mega pixels ( 4 from memory )
6. It has a rear viewing screen AND an optical view finder ( yes really ! )

Now that editing and cropping is soooooooooo quick and easy I can now understand why fixed lens users don't seem too bothered about a lack of zoom capability.
They just shoot and crop !

This picture has already been cropped


The image is cropped again

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Again, this has already been cropped once

View attachment 57610

and the toy crops again

View attachment 57611

And again

View attachment 57612

View attachment 57613

The C310 allows pretty substantial cropping and still renders reasonably acceptable results. Just imagine what a much bigger sensor and super optics can achieve !

Some other images from the little Kodak

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 57615

View attachment 57616

Using a fixed lens encourages you to get in closer to the subject and certainly makes you think more before pressing the button.
I would imagine using the little Kodak ( or similar ) for a week, would sway potential X100 ( or other fixed lens compact ) owners to buy or not to buy.
Saying that I think I will be sticking with my EX1 :)


Tilman Paulin

Vancouver B.C.
Real Name
once you rid yourself of the idea that over a certain point, megapixels make no difference to how good your images look, it's rather liberating ...

very true! It doesn't mean that you're not tempted by megapixels every once in a while. :)
But if you manage to resist you can keep using your old computer, your old software and accessories. Restrictions can work to your advantage... or sometimes drive you crazy... You win some, you lose some :)


I think it was starting to use film again that has sealed it for me.

I can't imagine now that any more "IQ" than I can get with my Olympus E-P2 is worth buying another camera for. I can't zoom my film scans to 100% and see each blade of grass but so what?

While my hand has been mostly inoperative I've been using my old Canon P&S - albeit converted to shoot raw - and I love the way it renders with "just" 7.1MP and a 1/1.8 sensor ... especially in monochrome.

anyhoo, chacun a son gout and all that

Tilman Paulin

Vancouver B.C.
Real Name
I think it was starting to use film again that has sealed it for me.
... I can't zoom my film scans to 100% and see each blade of grass but so what?

exactly right, you don't necessarily need all that detail.
As an example: motion picture film for visual effects and DI (digital intermediate - colour grading) is scanned at "2k" most of the time.
Which is 2048x1556 = 3.2 Megapixels.
Which is what you see at the movie theatre. :)

(Some projects get worked on at 4k these days, which is equivalent to 12Megapixels, but it's still quite rare.)


Hall of Famer
Caguas, Puerto Rico
Real Name
These were shot back in the Spring of 2005 with a Kodak EasyShare CX 7310 which I had bought for my son (then 5 years old). Obviously, not SOOC. Re-processed a few minutes ago with PS CS5 and Silver Efex 2.0. I believe the CX 7310 is one generation behind the C310 and is only 3.2mp rather than 4mp.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Puerto Nuevo Beach, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico.

These look fine on screen, but would probably not print larger than 5" x 7" without the lack of detail becoming obvious.

This is the camera that took them:


2004 Kodak CX 7310 by ramirezaponte, on Flickr




Top Veteran
South Australia
These great photos show us that pixel peeping is on the way out and just enjoying your photography is on the way in!!!

I love my X100 and Promise to have a hunt around and buy one of these little beauties to play with too :)


Real Name
Nice photos, Richard. I can't recall whether it was the Easyshare C310 or the CX7310 that Antonio mentioned that was my family's first digital camera. We ordered it from Dell along with a desktop computer and I really disliked it. You seem to do very well with it. It was a nice surprise to see images from that camera on here after all this time!


Awabakal Country
Real Name
And heres one from my old Ollie, completely unedited, even to the point where you can see reflections in the glass I was shooting through. Sydney Harbour, looking in the direction of the heads, from the top of ...somewhere... I forget where we had lunch. In the foreground, the Botanic Gardens. Taken a few years ago.


P6150003 by kyte50, on Flickr


Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
several years ago, I was ata scenic location, Craigs Hut (which was originally built for the man from snowy river movie), beautiful wild light from a storm. Put my Pentax K10 on the manfrotto tripod. Damm dead battery, turned out then charger was faulty and despite being on charge overnight, the battery had not charged. I was devastated til I remembered there was a very basic 4 MP camera in the car. Grabbed it, placed on said manfrotto to the guffaws of onlookers, here is the results