I can't explain it but I can't deny it either. There's something about shooting with the X100, X100s, and X-Pro that's unlike anything else I've shot with. And its not a minor difference. Its just a different shooting experience. Part of it, particularly with the X100/100s is just the size and fit and feel of the camera. And the simplicity of a self-contained camera like that. But the OVF/EVF is a HUGE part of it to me. I'm selling some gear and thinking very hard about adding an X100s to my gear. I absolutely don't need it. The RX1 is a better camera in any quantifiable way (with the possible exception of AF speed in really good light) and it's also a qualitatively better camera to my eye in every way EXCEPT for the viewfinder - there's something about the images I get out of that camera that are above and beyond anything else I've shot with. But the Fuji has its own magic. Part of it is the colors and look of the files Fuji turns out. Part of it is the controls. But MOST of it, to me at least, is the built in hybrid viewfinder. Which is just plain fun to shoot with. And, compared to the RX1 WITH the EVF, its a good deal smaller and less fiddly too. And this is despite the issues with the raw files and the ISO inflation that I also believe Fuji is guilty of.
For me, its also about variety. Before I got an RX1 or a Coolpix A, my primary cameras were an OMD with a range of lenses and an X-Pro with a few lenses. I shot with both in overlapping focal lengths, using the Fuji at 28 and 21 a lot (and 53 very rarely) and the OMD at 24, 28, and 35 (as well as the longer focal lengths I still use that camera for). I just enjoyed the very different shooting experience and different look to the files. Once I got the RX1 and Nikon, I sold most of my m43 lenses in the middle to wide-ish range and I sold the Fuji 18 and 35mm lenses. I wanted to keep the 14mm lens, but its too wide to really use comfortably with the OVF, so I sold the X-Pro too and picked up a used XE1 with its very nice EVF. And now I have GREAT gear in the focal lengths I use most often, but I miss the variety and I mostly miss the Fuji OVF and the Fuji colors and smoothness in those most used focal lengths. So, if I add an X100s (and the 28mm adapter lens, which is excellent BTW), I'll have the same basic focal lengths covered but with the Fuji shooting experience for a change of pace, for variety. So, yeah, the Fuji isn't better, but its different and has its own very real charms.
I have to admit this recent discussion is making me re-consider though. The RX1 had convinced me that I could like 35mm almost as much as 28mm, but this discussion has clarified that this might well be because the RX1 is closer to 32 than 35mm rather than my powers of adaptation. The difference in the FOV in the back to back shots I'd done with the RX1 and X100s was not something I really spent any time thinking about when I shot them, but its not a small difference when I go back and look at some of the shots. So now I'm wondering if I'd really enjoy the X100s with the basic lens enough to actually USE it much. With the 28mm adapter lens, the package is larger and the OVF starts getting really crowded (between reduced are a outside the framelines and more intrusion of the lens into the view). I'd enjoy using it, but I wouldn't buy the camera to primarily use at 28mm. So, I'll have to think about whether I'd like shooting at a TRUE 35-ish mm FOV. I might not go that way at all. But I do miss the whole Fuji OVF/EVF shooting experience quite a bit. Its pretty unique and somewhat addictive and I'm jones-ing for having it as an option, as I've had it for most of the past 2 1/2 years, since I first got the X100 in March 2011...
-Ray
Very interesting. I do agree that the more unified feel of the Fuji's is a notch above the body+evf experience of the RX1. I do miss my NEX 7 on that behalf. Yes, I also appreciated the great OVF experince but after using a Contax G2 in the past, I swear, nothing comes anything close to its engineering feat for parallax correction (and this was done with any lens attached bar the 16mm biogon)
And that camera probably brings me to one important point in my photographic experience: unity.
Some years ago, at the peak of my photographic gear acquisition days I used to have a Contax medium format camera and 5 lenses for it. Two Contax AF SLRs and 2 lenses, one RTS III and 4 lenses, Contax G2 and 5 lenses and a Nikon D2x and the three 2.8 zooms from 17 to 200.
At that time I already loved 35mm though not as much because I shot a lot in 21, 24 and 50 too. 35mm FOV shots represented roughly 60% of my shots.
Then I got my first important documentary assignment. It was a personal project and I decided to shoot it on film. I also decided to shoot it on slides because I wanted the finest grain possible for printing afterwards. I knew the Contax G lenses were among the finest along with Leica's own (at the time the Contax 45mm was the sharpest lens tested by photodo.com.... the only website with its own MTF tests on film) So I took the Contax with me and the RTS III as back up (because I had a fast 50 and a 35mm for it keeping the gear as compact) The RTS was promoted to 50mm shots while the Contax G2 had a steady 35mm mission along with 21mm for environmental shots. After getting all the films back from the lab (100 rolls in total) I realised how flexible and versatile was the G2. I also realised while shooting that people felt less threatened with the smaller champagne coloured camera I had.
The next few months saw the demise of all of the gear above bar the G2 and I used it on an almost daily basis for the next year or so until I got a 5D2 because video added something to my work the G2 couldnt. Even then, while not working, the G2 was doing the daily loving because I loved that camera to bits and my relationship to it was nearly symbiotic. Taking the camera out was like putting on shoes. It was flawless and natural. And I know I got to that point because my loyalty to the G2 meant that I got so used to it I knew it back to front. Every mm of it I knew and I knew what it liked and what it did not like when focusing and my focusing was flawless on a camera criticized by many as a hopeless terrible AF rangefinder. It was temperamental (like the RX1 sometimes) but it wasn't stupid (like the 5D2 ---£2,200 of misleading AF!)
Work took a big priority later and the G2 saw less and less action. This wasnt helped by the fact that film stocks became more expensive and processing was even more expensive! So, I decided that the G2 had to go to a wealthier household where it would be used and not remain inactive.
I thought the NEX 7 was the closest I could get to the G2. Then the X Pro 1 came in and that's just such a close cut body-wise of a G2. Sadly, the X Pro 1 is more temperamental, in my experience, and the wide lens (18 only available at the time) is nowhere near the Contax G lens. Sadly, the Zeiss 24mm is also not close but the NEX gave me a more fluid experience. Maybe the 23mm 1.4 coming up would be good but Fuji would really need to top the RX1's Sonnar to make me consider a switch.
So, damn, long post. What I am trying to say is that I find the RX1 to have a particular flavour to it that reminds me of the G2 because when the G2 was out, there was no rangefinder like it. On the contrary, many argued it was not a rangefinder. Quite frankly, I don't know of any camera that can give me what the Sonnar does. To that end, I am determined to achieve the closest to perfect balance with the RX1. I am pretty sure, this time round, that this would be my new Contax.
Hey, they say Sony is about to implement a Contax AX-like AF mechanism for Canon/Nikon lenses on Sony cameras. Maybe Sony got a hold of them Contax engineers and I am just picking up the smell.
