Thread: The X100-S

I've never used a Leica, and had never shot with a rangefinder camera till recently when I bought a Yashica GTN film camera. Having never used a manual focus camera before, I really hadn't expected the process of focusing to be as compelling an experience as it turned out to be. I suddenly felt more connected to what I was framing in the viewfinder. The process of hunting around for a vertical surface, trying to get the images to line up, it was all very exciting and more than that, I felt more responsible for the quality of the output. I kept wondering whether the one thing that is wrong with my X100, couldn't be turned to it's greatest advantage. Poor AF. If Fujifilm could just do away with the darn thing and put in a nice rangefinder OVF instead. I mean they already have a rangefinder in the GF670!

Fujifilm GF670 Professional Film Camera

I put together a list of things that would make the X100 more compelling for me, lets call it the X100"Street" or X100-S

1. A true rangefinder with a parallax OVF, as bright as the X100.
2. Fixed, manual focus only, 35mm lens, with a notch where your finger fits in (basically like a Leica lens).
3. All black body with no markings on the face.
4. Get rid on everything that is not essential, no movie mode, digital filters, etc.
5. Price it just under 2000$ (I'm guessing the rangefinder VF will be a fair penny)
6. The APSC sensor on the X100 remains.
7. Bundle an editing software that replicates all Fuji film filters, corrections, etc (maybe a tweaked version of CameraBag2 customized for Fuji)
8. Detachable tiltable LCD panel for waist level shooting, that I could leave at home or in the camera bag, so that I don't have the option of chimping every time I take a picture (could be sold as a separate accessory). Of course it might be ungainly focusing the camera while using this (TLR cameras were used this way but the focus dials were on the side).

Does any of this make sense to you guys? What else would you add to the list?

I like some of your ideas here Boid, but I take umbrage with your pricing scheme. I certainly want it to be a quality product. But the reason there are so many old, great fixed lens rangefinder cameras on the used market that we can buy cheaply, is because they were always a cheap camera to manufacture. There is nothing inherently expensive about making a rangefinder camera (especially if the rangefinder mechanism is just going to work with a fixed focal length).

So, I like all your numbered suggestions except for #5. I say they make an entry-level digital 35mm rangefinder (though maintaining high build and optical quality) for around $1000. Then when it starts to sell like hotcakes, they bring out an interchangeable lens version for around $2,000. It would be akin to their introduction of the X100 that was followed up by the X-Pro1 a year later.

I'd buy one.

Originally Posted by Boid

I really hadn't expected the process of focusing to be as compelling an experience as it turned out to be. I suddenly felt more connected to what I was framing in the viewfinder. The process of hunting around for a vertical surface, trying to get the images to line up, it was all very exciting and more than that, I felt more responsible for the quality of the output.

THIS, THIS, THIS was what happened to me when I got my Leica. DSLR photography felt superficial and unsatisfactory after that. I so wanted to love the X-Pro1 but it's hard now. If I do get another camera, it'll be for other purposes like motion capture or filmmaking. Or, something in medium format which I've had my eye on lately.

Originally Posted by Boid

I mean they already have a rangefinder in the GF670!

And I wouldn't mind one of those sweet bellows 80mm babys either!

Whatever it comes down to Boid, people will still shoot digital like they shoot digital, it won't ever be the same. Reason being, excess frames are free. The shooter has to slow down, think about what they want to convey, compose their shots, of course chimp the viewfinder to make sure they got them otherwise there is no reason to digital.. and then move on. Not fire 10-12 shots hoping to get something in the flurry. I think it is more than just the rangefinder experience though I love mine, I think its developing a waste less philosophy as well.

Kristen, I think you are partially right. But I definitely slow down and enjoy the experience more shooting with manual glass on a digital body. But I do love the instant feedback of digital. I have a couple film cameras and I just never use them. My life is too busy and sometimes I'll go out to shoot and only grab 3 or 4 frames. I have one camera that I loaded film into last summer and I still have 12 frames left to shoot. So I'm not wasteful with digital....I still shoot very few frames, but I need digital so that I can enjoy my shots in the same year that I take them.

Nobody ever seems to agree with me about this, but here goes again ... if film had never existed, if rangefinders had never existed ... and digital photography had been invented last year (but as it is it is today) as the first and only method of capturing images ... nobody would be talking about how best to reduce the functionality of the cameras so as to "improve the shooting experience" ...

as it is, we all have both film and digital and rangefinders (and AF and slrs and pinholes and Box Brownies and lightmeters and mechanical cameras and video and Bayer sensors and Foveon sensors and monochrome sensors and ... whatever else your heart desires) available to us ...

... and there are no rules about having to use only one and no other ... in fact, there are no rules ...

I agree with you pdh. I think anything that helps people take better photos is good. I'm not asking for AF to be removed from existence. I view it as akin to some people preferring a manual transmission vs. an automatic. It's not always that people think they getter fuel efficiency or quicker acceleration. Some just prefer the experience.

I would welcome a digital rangefinder with manual focus only for the pure joy and connectedness to the process (without the added expense of film). Also be keeping AF out of the camera altogether, you remove people's complaints about poor AF performance.

thanks Luke.
I'm certainly not feeling critical of Boid, by the way, for his take on this (you're not the first, Boid, to want this sort of thing! - though you have basically described an M8 ) ... it's just that if you want to use 1920s technology to focus your camera, you can already (I do sometimes, I've got a Bessa R2a after all) and you can even buy a digital camera to do it with (if you save up long enough or have deep pockets) ... but no manufacturer is at all likely to start setting up production lines to do it now from scratch, not even Fuji ... the costs would so far exceed the potential money to be made from a small number of enthusiasts as to make it prohibitive ...

Originally Posted by pdh

Nobody ever seems to agree with me about this, but here goes again ... if film had never existed, if rangefinders had never existed ... and digital photography had been invented last year (but as it is it is today) as the first and only method of capturing images ... nobody would be talking about how best to reduce the functionality of the cameras so as to "improve the shooting experience" ...

as it is, we all have both film and digital and rangefinders (and AF and slrs and pinholes and Box Brownies and lightmeters and mechanical cameras and video and Bayer sensors and Foveon sensors and monochrome sensors and ... whatever else your heart desires) available to us ...

... and there are no rules about having to use only one and no other ... in fact, there are no rules ...

So which one do you prefer? I like rangefinders, just not the price that I have to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Luke

There is nothing inherently expensive about making a rangefinder camera (especially if the rangefinder mechanism is just going to work with a fixed focal length).

So, I like all your numbered suggestions except for #5. I say they make an entry-level digital 35mm rangefinder (though maintaining high build and optical quality) for around $1000. Then when it starts to sell like hotcakes, they bring out an interchangeable lens version for around $2,000. It would be akin to their introduction of the X100 that was followed up by the X-Pro1 a year later.

I'd buy one.

My guesstimate on the price was because Fuji would have to build the X100 and then lug a rangefinder VF in it. From whatever I've read on manufacturing a nice bright rangefinder VF, it seems Leica managed one with the M3 and then hasn't built anything as good since.