Hi all. I've owned a few cameras over the past two years, but I kept coming back to my experience and images with the X100 that I owned in early 2011 shortly after it first came out. Naturally, like all of us who use cameras regularly - I have matured as a photographer over the past two years, so I recently re-purchased an X100. Here are my quick re-review thoughts on the major, major issues that prevent people form buying this superb camera or alternatively that spur people to sell it:
Auto Focus - Way, way better than I remember it in May 2011. The X100 I have now came with ver 1.1 firmware which I promptly upgraded to 1.3. The AF is not as peppy as my O-MD EM-5, but it's better than my Coolpix 995 (2002) ever was! Really now, it is still so easy to jab at less-than-perfect AF camera performance, but it is well more than ample. Heck, I still remember marveling at my brother's ability to manual focus his Minolta XG1 in the early 1980s... I have little kids, as well as like doing street photo work, it's more than capable. Remember, Cartier-Bresson did all that "moment" work with a MF camera...
Image Quality - Yes, this is the reason I re-bought one. Even though I owned an O-MD E-M5 recently with the new 12-35/2.8 lens from Panasonic or even the PanaLeica 25/1.4, nothing really compared favorably to the X100. When I was in B&H (which I am lucky to work near), I chatted up the salesman behind one of the counters and his reaction was: "Of course. The X100 lens is hand-ground from superb glass. It's better than some Leica lenses."
Fixed focal length lens - This was also a relative complaint of mine (and others) of the X100, but I really dont mind it now. If I need to zoom, I use my feet. If doing that is not an option, and if I really really need to have zoomed in, I'll crop part of the photo. The IQ and sharpness is *so* good, that even cropping for print purposes loses nothing. Ergo, the 135 equiv of 35mm can easily be cropped to 50mm (or even 75mm) and printed to 5x7 with no major loss. But, if one is going to pixel peep and blow it up to 500%, then of course it will appear inadequate if you need zoom.
Re-Loving it and image quality...
Cheers.
Auto Focus - Way, way better than I remember it in May 2011. The X100 I have now came with ver 1.1 firmware which I promptly upgraded to 1.3. The AF is not as peppy as my O-MD EM-5, but it's better than my Coolpix 995 (2002) ever was! Really now, it is still so easy to jab at less-than-perfect AF camera performance, but it is well more than ample. Heck, I still remember marveling at my brother's ability to manual focus his Minolta XG1 in the early 1980s... I have little kids, as well as like doing street photo work, it's more than capable. Remember, Cartier-Bresson did all that "moment" work with a MF camera...
Image Quality - Yes, this is the reason I re-bought one. Even though I owned an O-MD E-M5 recently with the new 12-35/2.8 lens from Panasonic or even the PanaLeica 25/1.4, nothing really compared favorably to the X100. When I was in B&H (which I am lucky to work near), I chatted up the salesman behind one of the counters and his reaction was: "Of course. The X100 lens is hand-ground from superb glass. It's better than some Leica lenses."
Fixed focal length lens - This was also a relative complaint of mine (and others) of the X100, but I really dont mind it now. If I need to zoom, I use my feet. If doing that is not an option, and if I really really need to have zoomed in, I'll crop part of the photo. The IQ and sharpness is *so* good, that even cropping for print purposes loses nothing. Ergo, the 135 equiv of 35mm can easily be cropped to 50mm (or even 75mm) and printed to 5x7 with no major loss. But, if one is going to pixel peep and blow it up to 500%, then of course it will appear inadequate if you need zoom.
Re-Loving it and image quality...
Cheers.