Hi Moose,
I can't speak for Ken, but my desire to get an X100 goes back to my roots in
photography. I started out with the early Leica RF, before the Leica M3 was
released. The small camera with the only lens I could afford at the time
was a joy to use, and was not very conspicuous when taking occasional candid
snaps.
The X100 would appear to be the closest thing in a digital camera to that
original equipment. If I need a variety of focal lengths, I have my
E-thingies, but they are much larger and more obvious. In my recent
experience, I seldom change lenses in the field anyway. A 35mm(equiv) FL is
a pretty good compromise.
Just my 2-cents.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] OT: X100
> On 2/25/2013 2:11 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> I'm waiting for the X100 to fall sufficiently out of favor so I can
>> snag one for a reasonable price. Other than the convoluted menu system
>> and other foibles, I haven't found anything about that camera to
>> really dislike. Me wants.
>
> I've recently paid a bit of attention to the large sensor 'compacts' with
> fixed, prime lenses. It may have been comments
> about the Sony RX100 that started it ...
>
> In many cases, the fixed lens cameras are as large and heavy as ILCs with
> comparable lenses, or bigger.
>
> In the case at hand, I looked at the X100, 35mm eq. vs the E-PL1. The X100
> has a 35/2 eq. lens and the E-PL1 assumes the
> Panny 20/1.7, 40 mm eq., slightly longer, slightly faster
>
> H W D Wt.
> X100 - 126 75 54 445
> E-PL1 - 115 72 62 434
>
> Comparing Raw files from both in dpreview's marvelous, multi-camera image
> comparator page, the E-PL1/2 are clearly
> resolving more at ISO 200 and 800 than the X100. At 1600, the X100 has
> slightly less obvious noise, but the Olys resolve
> more detail. At 3200, the Olys start to show more noise, and color noise
> starts to become visible. At 6400, the E-PL1
> drops out, and sensor size finally rules, as the Fuji is quite a bit
> better than the E-PL2.
>
> Through 1600, I give the nod to the Olys, at 3200 the Fuji noses into the
> lead and wins handily at 6400. All rather
> subtle differences visible only at 100% until 6400. BTW, the E-M5 is
> better than the others in all categories.
>
> So what is it about the X100 that appeals?
>
> The viewfinder? Which I haven't tried and I somehow assume I won't like,
> based solely on my dislike of rangefinder
> finders, which is probably wrong.
>
> There is a modest, but distinct, edge at the highest ISOs; is that it?
>
> Some combination of Appearance, Geek and Gear Acquisition Syndromes?
>
> For my personal taste, the flexibility of interchangeable lenses trumps
> all the rest.
>
> Puzzlin' Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|