Fuji X10, so pretty!
- Thread starter theveed
- Start date
This beauty will cost around USD 700 based on:
http://www.adorama.com/IFJX10.html?...ate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid63773
Which is approx. S$875 or more ..... but final price is still to be confirmed by Fuji according to Adorama.
http://www.adorama.com/IFJX10.html?...ate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid63773
Which is approx. S$875 or more ..... but final price is still to be confirmed by Fuji according to Adorama.
edutilos-
Senior Member
I think that is because the zoom is not done via a knob like the other cameras you have listed...
It would be hard to implement manual zoom on a non-protruding lens... But manual zooming has its advantages.
edutilos-
Senior Member
aaron80
Senior Member
I seriously hope its not so expensive.
Even if it is a good camera, it is still a compact camera with a small sensor. I really hope Fujifilm Singapore wun price it above $700.
Even if it is a good camera, it is still a compact camera with a small sensor. I really hope Fujifilm Singapore wun price it above $700.So expensive.
Far far away
Senior Member
Seems like Fuji have another winner in this camera!
wilswong
Member
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11090102fujifilmx10.asp
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/fujifilm/finepix-x10/fujifilm-finepix-x10-review.html
Fuji had finally caught up with the rest with built in optical image stabiliser and "motion panorama". Let's see how the high ISO would perform as well as the battery life.
Motion pano is already out in x100...and if my memory serves me correct, Sony came out followed by x100.
Image stabiliser, for those who understands, is also pretty over rated and can even say started to become a marketing gimmick. What's the point of the camera being stable but the shuttle speed is not fast enough to capture the movement. Aperture is still important for most though IS is a good insurance to have. All my zoom F2.8 do not have IS.
wilswong
Member
Judging by the cut away tech image, it will be a straight optical view finder with no overlay information ala Canon G12. Those who used RFs will find this a common thing. Those used to DSLR will start to complain.
wilswong
Member
Somehow Nikon are not that great in the compact camera department. So parts bin? I don't think so but still it does look similar. Like you I am more concerned with the output rather than how the tool looks. Lens and EXR, placement of the dials are key things to look at. But judging by the PASM dial, there will be a lot of button meshing and wheel scrolling ala DSLR method. Not that bad but once you get used to RF and x100 straight to the point settings, PASM do seems slower. Was doing a lot of scrolling today shooting birds at Jurong Bird Park today.
Hmmm, I one of those who do not understand! Care to enlighten us?
wilswong
Member
OK....you switch on IS. The camera is stable, can using slower shutter speed. Now subject moves and you pan. Slow shutter speed will result in? In the end, need faster shutter speed that means need an aperture wide enough to allow more light in (f2.8) so that one can freeze the subject ala sports photography. If the shutter speed is already fast, is there a use for IS? So in x100 there is no IS because at 35mm, the focal distance is quite far and small movements is not that pronounced. And then add that to the use of the viewfinder instead of the MFT screen only shooting method, there will be less body fidgeting, movement, vibration so the IS is not needed. Couple with the use of F2.0 and then that means a shutter speed that is fast enough (for me i can hold 1/15), then IS is also not needed.
ADD that mix to a fantastic Hi ISO performance and I can use good high ISO settings of 1600, then the IS is seriously over rated.
If I get a camera that has no IS? Simple. Just use a tripod. Works fine, can be used with any camera, better quality pictures and seriously is sharper than any camera with I.S.
But I.S. is a good insurance. Just remember to switch it off when it is on tripod (again, making I.S. over rated).
raymondluo
New Member
I disagree. To say that I.S is over rated and bordering gimmicky is a total disregard for systems who have thrived on it and the countless dollar bills invested on the technology. Regardless of whether the stabilization is in lens or built into the body, in a professional telephoto lens or a high end binoculars and even your average consumer zoom. It's difficult to think that it's all simply a marketing ploy, and that 'since everybody does it my camera should have it as well'. Although to your defense, with regards to video feature in DSLRs that is quite the truth. But proper implementation of video (manual controls/ bitrate and codec) do make other DSLRs stand out from the rest and are certainly not gimmicks but actual professional tools.
I would like to address some of your points your brought up and I hope you will take no offense, what I've learned is from others and we are all learning to the grave.
No matter how small a movement there is, if it isn't on a stable platform, the sharpness of an image will dramatically decline. This is why I.S is It is the 'lazy man's tripod'. It is true, IS can never beat a tripod. Any picture taken with a tripod will be sharper hands down. In fact every photographer who even consider themselves to be a serious enthusiast should love the tripod, the image difference is very much perceivable to any human eye. And to take your point on fast shutter speeds, in the eyes of any camera regardless of it's shutter speed, our hands are the equivalent of stage 3 parkinson's disease. It is just not as noticeable at a faster shutter speed, but it doesn't mean the issue is completely elevated.
Why trade I.S on the pretense that ISO performance is 'fantastic'? I think this is where your argument starts to question itself. I think it is not quite wrong to say that any picture taken with as little electronic manipulation generates a better picture. That said I would never trade ISO performance for IS. ISO performance no matter how fantastic will always compromise sharpness, detail and dynamic range for proper exposure and should not be an excuse for anything other than 'I did not bring my flash'. (Not that this does not include electronic image stabilization, which is mainly used in consumer digicams or in Olympus E-Ps during video mode)
Using IS does not mean you will be able to capture any moment but if people have shot moments in 1/25 or 1/15 even so if anything, IS only serves to aid those times when you have to shoot at that. The most popular example I can think of are concerts.
Sure, if the shutter speed is too low you won't be able to capture certain types of photography e.g. sports, but photographers who shoot concerts, fire jugglers or dances tend to purposely use a slower shutter effect to capture the movement as well. I think this is one of the times when IS, really is useful then. Since you would be trying to capture the movement of the subject, not your hands.
It is a- better to have it than not feature, but I agree as well that it is also a 'can live without it' option too.
I would like to address some of your points your brought up and I hope you will take no offense, what I've learned is from others and we are all learning to the grave.
No matter how small a movement there is, if it isn't on a stable platform, the sharpness of an image will dramatically decline. This is why I.S is It is the 'lazy man's tripod'. It is true, IS can never beat a tripod. Any picture taken with a tripod will be sharper hands down. In fact every photographer who even consider themselves to be a serious enthusiast should love the tripod, the image difference is very much perceivable to any human eye. And to take your point on fast shutter speeds, in the eyes of any camera regardless of it's shutter speed, our hands are the equivalent of stage 3 parkinson's disease. It is just not as noticeable at a faster shutter speed, but it doesn't mean the issue is completely elevated.
Why trade I.S on the pretense that ISO performance is 'fantastic'? I think this is where your argument starts to question itself. I think it is not quite wrong to say that any picture taken with as little electronic manipulation generates a better picture. That said I would never trade ISO performance for IS. ISO performance no matter how fantastic will always compromise sharpness, detail and dynamic range for proper exposure and should not be an excuse for anything other than 'I did not bring my flash'. (Not that this does not include electronic image stabilization, which is mainly used in consumer digicams or in Olympus E-Ps during video mode)
Using IS does not mean you will be able to capture any moment but if people have shot moments in 1/25 or 1/15 even so if anything, IS only serves to aid those times when you have to shoot at that. The most popular example I can think of are concerts.
Sure, if the shutter speed is too low you won't be able to capture certain types of photography e.g. sports, but photographers who shoot concerts, fire jugglers or dances tend to purposely use a slower shutter effect to capture the movement as well. I think this is one of the times when IS, really is useful then. Since you would be trying to capture the movement of the subject, not your hands.
It is a- better to have it than not feature, but I agree as well that it is also a 'can live without it' option too.
aaron80
Senior Member
I agree with raymondluo that IS is something which is better to have rather than not. Although its true that the X100 with its 23mm F2.0 lens and high iso capability can be used quite well even without IS, it will be even better if IS is also available!
IS will more or less help with handheld shooting, even a 1-2 stops of help is very welcomed if your shutter speed is very low. The X10 with its smaller sensor will most likely be not as good as the X100 at higher iso, therefore the IS will definitely help when you don't want the iso to go too high.
IS will more or less help with handheld shooting, even a 1-2 stops of help is very welcomed if your shutter speed is very low. The X10 with its smaller sensor will most likely be not as good as the X100 at higher iso, therefore the IS will definitely help when you don't want the iso to go too high.
Last edited:
wilswong
Member
When I mean over rated, I meant it in a way that people treat it as a must have feature rather than an insurance feature. Not all insurance are must have. The must have feature, to me, is really the F2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. That itself contributes better to the photography I like to shoot for myself and clients.
Everyone has a way to shoot. I like to shoot concerts when the performers are more active, are more lively and hence a more dynamic picture that the clients like. In that sense, the I.S. with slow shutter speed won't work and that minimises the effectiveness and perceived value of it all, especially those in the compact camera class.
For shots that the performers are sitting down, plonking the piano, plucking the strings and serenading the microphone, the I.S. that enables a low shutter speed and usage of low ISO is certainly welcomed. In the end it is the subject matter that matters (pardon the pun). But in the whole value system, the F2.8 or lower does a better job by controlling high ISO usage and allows faster shutter speed.
I did not say I.S. is totally useless. I just say it is a good thing to have for all range of shutter speeds. It is more like an insurance than a must have, which you guys have said well. For times when one has to bring a light lens say the Nikon 18-200 F3.5-5.6 then the I.S. is certainly welcomed though I won't use it for fast action subjects in low light conditions.
Using the latest Comex show as an example. If the budget allows me to get a F2.8 I.S. 18-50 Tamron lens from red dot, then I would get it. If the lens is 100 cheaper without the I.S. then it is not a bad thing too if budget is an issue. But I certainly won't get a consumer lens with variable F stops through the zoom range because I want a stable Aperture settings throughout the zoom range. Even if I.S. is included at 100 dollars it does not add much and I certainly will see limited usage for it as compared to a fixed F2.8 lens without I.S. Hence I find this more like a marketing gimmick nowadays.
Last edited:
Similar threads
