Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
I've had a loaner Fuji X100s for a little over a week now and have shot with it in a variety of conditions. Since I owned an X100 and currently own an X-Pro, there was not a lot of adjustment or learning curve with this camera, so I feel I got a pretty good handle on it pretty quickly.
I've also been shooting with a Sony RX1 for about a month. I was initially planning to do a comparison between the two cameras (and may still do something like that on Serious Compacts) but I'm just going to focus on the X100s here. The Sony is a full frame camera with an amazing Zeiss lens that sells for over $3000 once you add a viewfinder. Its a premium camera that is perceived as the full frame deal of the century to some buyers and a horrible waste of money for relatively little gain to others. There's nothing I can write about either that will settle that potential argument because that's all about perspective, perception, and whether you can afford either or both. So, onto the X100s.
I'm finding myself with two conflicting feelings after spending some time with the X100s. First, it either matches or improves upon the original X100 in almost every way - the one potential exception is that some people don't like the look or workability of the raw files produced by the X-Trans sensor as much as the original 12mp Bayer sensor in the X100. Others, OTOH, find it an improvement. I'm in the camp that likes the X-Trans quite a lot, so I see no downside relative to the original X100 and many upsides.
On The Other Hand...
I'm also notably underwhelmed by the X100s, after having been mostly overwhelmingly pleased with the original X100. Which upon some reflection has less to do with the X100s than the crop of cameras that have sprung up around it since its introduction about two years ago. When the X100 was introduced, it was the first compact camera that a lot of DSLR shooters saw as a real alternative to shooting with a full-size DSLR. Micro four thirds was mostly still using the old 12mp Panasonic sensor that topped out at around 800-1600 ISO (the GH2 was out but there weren't many on the street yet), the Nex 7 and other advances in the Nex world (including lenses) were still on the horizon and the Nex 3 and Nex 5, while solid first steps, did not excite many enthusiasts except in terms of the potential they suggested. Neither Nikon or Canon had made any moves toward the mirrorless market yet. The Sigma DP series existed but were seen then, as now, as mostly specialty cameras for use in good light when shooting speed was of no importance. In short, the X100 came into that scene as a very solid APS camera with a sensor that could shoot well at ISO 3200 and workably at 6400, produced brilliant files, had a reasonably fast f2.0 fixed lens, a hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder unlike anything else seen on any camera, and it caused a LOT of excitement. In fairness, a good deal of that excitement evaporated once the camera was in circulation as many DSLR users couldn't get used to the slow AF, the parallax issues, the slow operation of the camera, and some of its many early quirks (many since ironed out in firmware). But for other early adopters (of which I was enthusiastically counted), it was a really exciting step forward in IQ and, in some ways, usability among smaller cameras. There was nothing else like it or even really comparable.
Fast forward two years and the landscape is entirely different. Micro four thirds has advanced to the point that its a serious contender, with sensors in the newest Olympus cameras and in the Panasonic GH3 that rival the best APS sensors available (which many will debate, but two years ago it wasn't even debatable) and a boom in acceptance of the OMD-EM5 that brought many DSLR shooters into the mirrorless world. And the m43 lens lineup can only be described as fully mature and still getting better. Sony has made great strides into the enthusiast world with the Nex 7, Nex 5n, Nex 6, and others going forward. These cameras have notably better sensors and controls than the first generation Nex models. Sony has also come out with the previously mentioned full frame RX1 and is rumored to be working on a full frame ILC mirrorless system which seems to have a lot of promise. And they've even developed a few good lenses for the Nex line, which were a while in coming. Samsung has developed the NX line of mirrorless cameras that seem most similar to the Nex line. Nikon entered the mirrorless world with the smaller sensor J1 and V1 models and has recently released the pocket size Coolpix A with an APS sensor and fixed 28mm lens. Canon has made a bit of an entry into the mirrorless world. Sigma continues to develop the DP line. And, of course, Fuji has come to the fore with its own line of interchangeable lens cameras (X-Pro and X-E1 as of now) designed after the X100 that are largely similar in function and took a step forward (or backward depending on your perspective) in sensor technology with the X-trans sensors.
So, into this new world steps the X100s. And what does it have to offer? Well, it has the same basic sensor as the Fuji X-Pro and X-E1 which many love and many don't. It has somewhat improved auto-focus but its barely better than the X-Pro or X-E1 if better at all and its still decidedly mid-pack with the m43 and Nikon '1' series cameras having raised the bar to new levels that the X100s is still well short of. While the X100 was the best small camera to date in terms of low light performance, the current Fuji lineup, including the X100s is good but not exceptional anymore, being matched or nearly matched by m43 and Nex offerings, clearly beaten by the RX1 and arguably beaten by the Nikon Coolpix A. The X100s is the best Fuji yet in terms of manual focus, having added the focus peaking technology Sony came up with for the Nex line a while ago and adding a cool new split image option similar to the way old SLR viewfinders would aid manual focus. And the feel of the manual focus mechanism, while better, is no match for the "clutch ring" mechanisms used in a couple of Olympus m43 lenses and Fuji's own 14mm lens for the X-Pro and X-E1. The operational speed of the X100s is hugely improved over the X100, but its basically just on par with many of the other cameras in this class today. The controls are great, but a matter of taste, and basically the same as the Fuji ILC bodies. The EVF is greatly improved in terms of resolution but still seems to experience more lag than the EVFs used by Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony. The hybrid viewfinder remains a marvel for those of us who like this sort of thing (its got to be my favorite feature of the Fuji cameras still), but is only marginally better than the same finder used in the X-Pro which, for reasons of complexity, is not quite as bright as the X100/X100s OVF, and doesn't offer a diopter adjustment.
I love shooting with the X100s. I like that it has a 28-ish mm conversion lens (that appears even sharper than the 18mm lens for the Fuji ILCs), but its not an easy thing to just switch on and off the camera, requiring a menu change among other things. It feels great in the hand as the X100 did, arguably the controls are slightly better from a tactile standpoint, its quicker and more responsive than its older brother ever was. Its auto focus is more than adequate in most light (although you need to switch to C-AF to get the most reliable performance in low light). Its manual focus setup is great. It has a distance scale that makes zone focus very easy to setup and use (although the electronic DOF scale, like most, is incredibly conservative and IMHO best avoided). Its about a stop better in low light than the X100 was. Its hybrid viewfinder is still an absolute delight to use for those of us who like it (seems obvious but it seems to be a love it or hate it kind of feature). Its a good street shooter, and among the best for those who like to use a viewfinder for street shooting (I prefer not to, so its only a so-so street camera for me). And the Fuji jpegs remains so good with this camera that I greatly prefer to shoot jpegs than raw - as I do with the X-Pro but I shoot raw with every non-Fuji camera I've used.
So, my bottom line with the X100s is that its a great and enjoyable camera, better in every way (or almost every way for those who don't prefer the X-trans sensor) than the original X100. Its really fun to shoot with. But in today's world its performance is just good, rather than head and shoulders above the competition. So it all comes down to personal preference, where two years ago you might have chosen the X100 even if it didn't meet some of your preferences because it was so much better in key ways than any of the alternatives. If you like a fixed lens 35mm camera (switchable to 28mm, but not easily, and at the cost of notably more bulk) with a built-in hybrid viewfinder, you won't do better. But if you want more options in lenses, any of the compact ILC options from Fuji, Sony, or m43 would suit you better at roughly similar performance levels. If you want a pocketable fixed lens 28mm and don't care about a built in viewfinder, the Nikon Coolpix A may be a better option. And if you want a fixed lens 35mm with an amazing full frame sensor and a lens to match, but don't care about having a built in viewfinder, and are willing to spend the big bucks, the Sony RX1 is a better choice.
When the X00 came out two years ago, there was nothing that came close to it. Today there are many cameras that match, and even exceed, the X100s at similar price points. So, its not a no-brainer. Its one more among many very very good cameras. If it fits your shooting priorities, its an absolutely wonderful camera. But if it doesn't, today you've got options you didn't have back then.
As for me, I'm going to enjoy shooting with the X100s for the remaining time I have it, but I'm not going to buy it. I'm going to say with my X-Pro for my Fuji fix and my other cameras for other types of shooting I also enjoy.
Since I never have all that much to say about a camera until I've shot with it a lot, here are some samples from my time so far with the X100s:
View attachment 11932
NYC X100s-47-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11933
NYC X100s-182-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11934
NYC X100s-105 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11935
NYC X100s-26 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11936
NYC X100s-73 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
NYC X100s-31 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
Even the obligatory dog shot!
View attachment 11938
NYC X100s-69 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
And a few low light shots:
View attachment 11939
X100 vs RX1-65-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11940
X100 vs RX1-49-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11941
X100 vs RX1-52-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
I've also been shooting with a Sony RX1 for about a month. I was initially planning to do a comparison between the two cameras (and may still do something like that on Serious Compacts) but I'm just going to focus on the X100s here. The Sony is a full frame camera with an amazing Zeiss lens that sells for over $3000 once you add a viewfinder. Its a premium camera that is perceived as the full frame deal of the century to some buyers and a horrible waste of money for relatively little gain to others. There's nothing I can write about either that will settle that potential argument because that's all about perspective, perception, and whether you can afford either or both. So, onto the X100s.
I'm finding myself with two conflicting feelings after spending some time with the X100s. First, it either matches or improves upon the original X100 in almost every way - the one potential exception is that some people don't like the look or workability of the raw files produced by the X-Trans sensor as much as the original 12mp Bayer sensor in the X100. Others, OTOH, find it an improvement. I'm in the camp that likes the X-Trans quite a lot, so I see no downside relative to the original X100 and many upsides.
On The Other Hand...
I'm also notably underwhelmed by the X100s, after having been mostly overwhelmingly pleased with the original X100. Which upon some reflection has less to do with the X100s than the crop of cameras that have sprung up around it since its introduction about two years ago. When the X100 was introduced, it was the first compact camera that a lot of DSLR shooters saw as a real alternative to shooting with a full-size DSLR. Micro four thirds was mostly still using the old 12mp Panasonic sensor that topped out at around 800-1600 ISO (the GH2 was out but there weren't many on the street yet), the Nex 7 and other advances in the Nex world (including lenses) were still on the horizon and the Nex 3 and Nex 5, while solid first steps, did not excite many enthusiasts except in terms of the potential they suggested. Neither Nikon or Canon had made any moves toward the mirrorless market yet. The Sigma DP series existed but were seen then, as now, as mostly specialty cameras for use in good light when shooting speed was of no importance. In short, the X100 came into that scene as a very solid APS camera with a sensor that could shoot well at ISO 3200 and workably at 6400, produced brilliant files, had a reasonably fast f2.0 fixed lens, a hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder unlike anything else seen on any camera, and it caused a LOT of excitement. In fairness, a good deal of that excitement evaporated once the camera was in circulation as many DSLR users couldn't get used to the slow AF, the parallax issues, the slow operation of the camera, and some of its many early quirks (many since ironed out in firmware). But for other early adopters (of which I was enthusiastically counted), it was a really exciting step forward in IQ and, in some ways, usability among smaller cameras. There was nothing else like it or even really comparable.
Fast forward two years and the landscape is entirely different. Micro four thirds has advanced to the point that its a serious contender, with sensors in the newest Olympus cameras and in the Panasonic GH3 that rival the best APS sensors available (which many will debate, but two years ago it wasn't even debatable) and a boom in acceptance of the OMD-EM5 that brought many DSLR shooters into the mirrorless world. And the m43 lens lineup can only be described as fully mature and still getting better. Sony has made great strides into the enthusiast world with the Nex 7, Nex 5n, Nex 6, and others going forward. These cameras have notably better sensors and controls than the first generation Nex models. Sony has also come out with the previously mentioned full frame RX1 and is rumored to be working on a full frame ILC mirrorless system which seems to have a lot of promise. And they've even developed a few good lenses for the Nex line, which were a while in coming. Samsung has developed the NX line of mirrorless cameras that seem most similar to the Nex line. Nikon entered the mirrorless world with the smaller sensor J1 and V1 models and has recently released the pocket size Coolpix A with an APS sensor and fixed 28mm lens. Canon has made a bit of an entry into the mirrorless world. Sigma continues to develop the DP line. And, of course, Fuji has come to the fore with its own line of interchangeable lens cameras (X-Pro and X-E1 as of now) designed after the X100 that are largely similar in function and took a step forward (or backward depending on your perspective) in sensor technology with the X-trans sensors.
So, into this new world steps the X100s. And what does it have to offer? Well, it has the same basic sensor as the Fuji X-Pro and X-E1 which many love and many don't. It has somewhat improved auto-focus but its barely better than the X-Pro or X-E1 if better at all and its still decidedly mid-pack with the m43 and Nikon '1' series cameras having raised the bar to new levels that the X100s is still well short of. While the X100 was the best small camera to date in terms of low light performance, the current Fuji lineup, including the X100s is good but not exceptional anymore, being matched or nearly matched by m43 and Nex offerings, clearly beaten by the RX1 and arguably beaten by the Nikon Coolpix A. The X100s is the best Fuji yet in terms of manual focus, having added the focus peaking technology Sony came up with for the Nex line a while ago and adding a cool new split image option similar to the way old SLR viewfinders would aid manual focus. And the feel of the manual focus mechanism, while better, is no match for the "clutch ring" mechanisms used in a couple of Olympus m43 lenses and Fuji's own 14mm lens for the X-Pro and X-E1. The operational speed of the X100s is hugely improved over the X100, but its basically just on par with many of the other cameras in this class today. The controls are great, but a matter of taste, and basically the same as the Fuji ILC bodies. The EVF is greatly improved in terms of resolution but still seems to experience more lag than the EVFs used by Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony. The hybrid viewfinder remains a marvel for those of us who like this sort of thing (its got to be my favorite feature of the Fuji cameras still), but is only marginally better than the same finder used in the X-Pro which, for reasons of complexity, is not quite as bright as the X100/X100s OVF, and doesn't offer a diopter adjustment.
I love shooting with the X100s. I like that it has a 28-ish mm conversion lens (that appears even sharper than the 18mm lens for the Fuji ILCs), but its not an easy thing to just switch on and off the camera, requiring a menu change among other things. It feels great in the hand as the X100 did, arguably the controls are slightly better from a tactile standpoint, its quicker and more responsive than its older brother ever was. Its auto focus is more than adequate in most light (although you need to switch to C-AF to get the most reliable performance in low light). Its manual focus setup is great. It has a distance scale that makes zone focus very easy to setup and use (although the electronic DOF scale, like most, is incredibly conservative and IMHO best avoided). Its about a stop better in low light than the X100 was. Its hybrid viewfinder is still an absolute delight to use for those of us who like it (seems obvious but it seems to be a love it or hate it kind of feature). Its a good street shooter, and among the best for those who like to use a viewfinder for street shooting (I prefer not to, so its only a so-so street camera for me). And the Fuji jpegs remains so good with this camera that I greatly prefer to shoot jpegs than raw - as I do with the X-Pro but I shoot raw with every non-Fuji camera I've used.
So, my bottom line with the X100s is that its a great and enjoyable camera, better in every way (or almost every way for those who don't prefer the X-trans sensor) than the original X100. Its really fun to shoot with. But in today's world its performance is just good, rather than head and shoulders above the competition. So it all comes down to personal preference, where two years ago you might have chosen the X100 even if it didn't meet some of your preferences because it was so much better in key ways than any of the alternatives. If you like a fixed lens 35mm camera (switchable to 28mm, but not easily, and at the cost of notably more bulk) with a built-in hybrid viewfinder, you won't do better. But if you want more options in lenses, any of the compact ILC options from Fuji, Sony, or m43 would suit you better at roughly similar performance levels. If you want a pocketable fixed lens 28mm and don't care about a built in viewfinder, the Nikon Coolpix A may be a better option. And if you want a fixed lens 35mm with an amazing full frame sensor and a lens to match, but don't care about having a built in viewfinder, and are willing to spend the big bucks, the Sony RX1 is a better choice.
When the X00 came out two years ago, there was nothing that came close to it. Today there are many cameras that match, and even exceed, the X100s at similar price points. So, its not a no-brainer. Its one more among many very very good cameras. If it fits your shooting priorities, its an absolutely wonderful camera. But if it doesn't, today you've got options you didn't have back then.
As for me, I'm going to enjoy shooting with the X100s for the remaining time I have it, but I'm not going to buy it. I'm going to say with my X-Pro for my Fuji fix and my other cameras for other types of shooting I also enjoy.
Since I never have all that much to say about a camera until I've shot with it a lot, here are some samples from my time so far with the X100s:
View attachment 11932
NYC X100s-47-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11933
NYC X100s-182-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11934
NYC X100s-105 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11935
NYC X100s-26 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11936
NYC X100s-73 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
NYC X100s-31 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
Even the obligatory dog shot!
View attachment 11938
NYC X100s-69 by ramboorider1, on Flickr
And a few low light shots:
View attachment 11939
X100 vs RX1-65-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11940
X100 vs RX1-49-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
View attachment 11941
X100 vs RX1-52-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr
Last edited by a moderator: