Look what i played with today!

[GTRacer]

You could argue that that's a focusing mechanism, not a requisite for a classification of viewfinder. It's still not TTL, and shows a larger area than the sensor sees.

It's not like a split prism is a requisite for a camera to be an SLR (not saying it shouldn't be, however ).

But a rangefinder camera is a camera that uses a rangefinder mechanism to achieve focus - it's got nothing to do with form factor or compositional method. Technically AF systems could be seen as a range finding device, but its more commonly used to refer to cameras which use a superimposed patch. It's incorrect to refer to the X100 as a rangefinder as its method of focusing is different to over 60 years worth of cameras classed as rangefinders. Just because it looks and functions like one doesn't mean that it is one: serious compact with a proper viewfinder is a more accurate way of describing it.

 

[PermaBanned]

A rangefinder camera isn't so much a camera that uses a rangefinder to achieve focus, but a camera that has a rangefinder, either electronic (ala Contax G2, which seems to use a similar focus mechanism to the X100) or otherwise (ala Lecia R8/any number of Lecia's/Zorki's really).

I wouldn't say the rangefinder design is a solution to the problem of how to focus, more how to view the image before you've taken it.

 

[GTRacer]

I see your point (in fact I alluded to it in my previous post), but I feel that the term 'rangefinder' refers to the classic, coincidental kind rather than the modern G2/Hexar/X100 type since it's just so heavily associated with the former. I own a Hexar AF (which is just like a film version of the X100), and the use of AF makes it feel a lot more point and shooty than my RF cameras.

PS: the R8 is an slr, you meant the M8 right?

 

[AtticusFinch]

I bought one and had it for a couple of weeks before returning it. Wasn't as good as the price required it to be. Novelty value yes, nicely made, yes, but simply nbot enought camera for the money.

 

[An Exception]

I bought one and had it for a couple of weeks before returning it. Wasn't as good as the price required it to be. Novelty value yes, nicely made, yes, but simply nbot enought camera for the money.

In what way exactly?

The reason I ask, and this doesn't necessarily apply to you as I haven't seen any of your work (So no offence intended), it's just some people think they can spend allot of money on a camera, and then suddenly think they'l be able to take great pictures.

 

[Ksanti]

What more could you ask for from a street photography camera? Obviously you're not going to be getting full frame at this price point and you don't need to change lenses for the shooting this is designed for.

It's built well and does the job, and provides a different (note I didn't say Leica-esque) shooting experience to DSLRs which many people can appreciate

 

[sarge78]

^ Maybe he was thinking of a cheaper m4/3 camera (or similar) with a fast prime?

The hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder is worth the price for me, I wish my GF1 had one of those badboys

 

[AtticusFinch]

It is nice

In what way exactly?

The reason I ask, and this doesn't necessarily apply to you as I haven't seen any of your work (So no offence intended), it's just some people think they can spend allot of money on a camera, and then suddenly think they'l be able to take great pictures.

No offence taken.

It's a digital rangefinder camera which fills a niche and does well for the product it is. Obviously the photos will only be as good as the person taking them and any good photographer can take a great shot on a £20 Holga.

I shoot all sorts of cameras and have done for 30 years or so, and my comments really were based on the fact that there are other quality cameras out there that offer similar or better image quality for less money (whilst still retaining the form-factor advantage of a pocketable camera). I just dont think the style and features of it justify the price tage.

 

[Rojin]

It looks a tasty camera, if I had the money I'd be interested.

I'd be more interested to see RAW comparisons than the jpegs above, the artefacts from the X-100 are very apparent.

 

[bigredshark]

One thing I'd say is while it beats on spec the Leica x1 (Which has no viewfinder as a start), the x1 feels so much more like a premium product in the hand. The x100 is well built out of solid materials, it's not like there's been any corner cutting...but in comparison it feels...not cheap but not premium either...

 

[Icm76]

dpreview.com: Fujifilm FinePix X100 In-Depth Review