Will the fujifilm x70 be worth buying for under $1k? Specs in thread.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information Uncalibrated
– 16MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS II sensor
– Image processing engine EXR Processor II
– AF 0.1 seconds. The image plane phase difference AF
– Shutter lag is 0.01 seconds. Shooting interval of 0.5 seconds. Start-up time of 0.5 seconds
– Customizable control ring
– LCD monitor three inches 1.04 million dots. 180 Opening tilting
– For the first time adopted a touch panel in the X series. Focus area selection, touch shot function
– The lens of the newly developed 18.5mm F2.8 (equivalent 28mm)
– Digital tele-converter (35mm and 50mm)
– Auto mode switch
– Digital split image. Focus peaking
– Wi-Fi built-in. Remote control shooting
– Continuous shooting 8 frames / sec in the AF tracking
– Silent electronic shutter. Top speed is 1/32000 seconds
– Film simulation mode (including classic chrome)
– Multi-exposure function
– Eight of the advanced filter
– Interval Timer
– Video Full HD 60fps
– Body color is black and silver
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information Uncalibrated
That's such a clear opponent to the GR, even the "digital tele-converter" is lifted from it. GR looks tons better tho.
Maybe this won't have issues with
>DUST
>U
>S
>T
>>2738807
>>2738808
>>2738811
For $1k? Nah, if it's competing with the GR and Coolpix A then it's too much, you're paying more for the looks, not the lens, which one would expect to have better specs to justify the price. IMO to justify the price the lens would have to be wider and faster, like maybe an 18.5mm f/2.0 or a 16mm f/1.9 lens
maybe if it came with a hotshoe OVF that doesn't cost retardbux
>>2738836
>GR looks tons better tho.
gr looks like a fucking toy camera from 90-ies m8.
>>2738807
for 400 euro, yes
One of the comments on the fujirumors site talks about how the only thing stopping the x100 series from being pocketable is the shitty lens cap just falls off, and that this x70 doesn't seem to have fixed the problem because it'll need a thread adapter to use a lens cap which adds to the mass of the camera. It's an issue of how wide the camera is from the back of the screen to the front of the lens.
I've been using my original x100 for years now and I'm inclined to kind of agree. Hopefully they come up with something so you could just throw it in your pocket and not have to worry about lens caps falling off, or the element getting scratched. Scratches on your lens is way more of a worry on a fixed lens camera.
Aside from that, looks pretty cool.
>>2738857
GR = Tool to work with. It's not supposed to look good or to be hip. It produces outstanding images, anything else is irrelevant.
>>2738959
The GR is a toy. Please don't pretend that it's a srs bsns working man's tool.
>>2738963
wedding photog detected
>fixed lens camera
>lens is wide angle
Fucking why.
>>2739014
Small pocket cameras like these are meant to be travel/moment/memory cameras. Stuff like that works best with an environment in the shot, therefore, wide angle.
They are not selling a camera to you personally, they are selling a camera to the sort of person who isn't happy with the image quality and handling of their cell phone, or to a more serious shooter, as a supplement to an ILC.
>>2738968
lol, not at all. i'm just saying, if your camera doesn't even have a viewfinder, it's not a serious piece of equipment.
>inb4 hyperpleb hotshoe vf
>>2739018
no viewfinder = pocketable.
worth it IMO
Fuji line up is just like VW, everything looks the same boring thing.
>>2739041
Not like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony, who all have a huge variety in their offerings...
>>2739031
cameras can be pocketable and have a viewfinder, it doesn't have to be a trade-off
pretty sure fuji just doesn't include it because looking at a screen at all times is the norm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2009:02:17 23:51:16 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 350 Image Height 259
>>2739045
LF1 has a EVF & is tiny.
>>2738968
street fag detected
why don't you go take some pics of hobos in hi contrast jpg lmao faggot
>>2739045
in any case I got used to not having one. it'd be nice but I can live without it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2738807
lol fuji wat r u doin
>>2738963
>Please don't pretend that it's a srs bsns working man's tool.
oh but it is
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:09:06 10:38:16 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -2.1 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2739079
Very Superia-ish
>>2739079
@Fuji hq
>holyshit both GR and RX100 are a better deal the x100[insert letter here]
>quickly, cut whatever we don't need like that evf bull
>X70
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 40 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:11:02 17:13:40 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Brightness 6.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 27.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2739102
? You say this like it's some ridiculous bullshit move... what is the issue that you're having? People wanted something like the GR, that wasn't a GR, so Fuji made it. Ta-Da.
>>2739103
The x100 is around 1000
GR and RX100 around 600
The price is the killer
>>2739108
The X100 has more features (like an OVF/EVF, for instance)
>>2739108
uhhh, the rx100 is like $1000.
>>2739113
Just like xt10 this is a good move on making their somewhat unique sensor more prevalent in a world of Bayer.
>>2739043
At least they can make something that isn't the same retro styling in every single new device.
>>2739204
Their design is consistent. It's a good thing. Also one of their main selling points. If you don't like it, buy Sony. Or Canon. Or Nikon.
>>2739114
You can get the RX100 III for $600
>>2739014
Wide angle lenses can be miniaturized more easily in fixed lens cameras. Telephoto lenses don't get much benefit from integrating closer to the sensor. See the Sigma compacts, the ~50mm equivalent one isn't smaller than an interchangeable lens.
>>2739246
They sell X100S for 500-600€ here.
>>2739594
Yeah, I picked up my x100s for $500. Pretty sure that guy has no idea what he's talking about. The rx100 series has some attractive features, but price isn't one.
>>2739594
it's ridiculous how highly priced the X100S is where i am, it's actually more expensive than the X100T online
>>2739246
>RX100 III
$798 USD from B&H
>>2738808
>most boring focal length
>f/2.8 without IS
>tfw no vf
For $1k I'd rather get a rx100m4 and deal with its fucked up controls
>>2738808
>Basically cheapo m3/4 camera with APS-C sencor
>1k bux
>>2739968
A m43 camera with a decent prime will cost you 1k bux as well, and you will lose >muh x-trans.
>>2739014
Because telephoto lens are going to be big and make the camera big whether it's a fixed lens camera or not? And in that case a fixed lens camera is dumb? And also you're dumb?
>>2740017
I'm pretty sure he wanted a normal-ish lens, not a telephoto one.
>>2738963
>GR
>Toy
Topzozzle, m8. My GR II probably has more professional settings than your DSLR :^)
>buying a point and shoot
why? seriously, why
w
h
y
>>2741239
STREETPHOTOGRAPHY
>>2741239
On the off chance that you're seriously asking, because the bigger and heavy a camera is the less likely I'll carry it round with me. If you're in a studio or shooting sports or whatever then I 100% agree with you, go DSLR every time, but if you're on your commute to work, or at a party, or concert a DSLR is just cumbersome, so a point and shoot or smaller mirrorless makes sense. Higher end point and shoots cater to that market, people like me who want decent image quality, low light performance, AF, and controls in a small package.
>>2741248
>>2741248
do the lens limitations fuck with you? having to fingerfuck all the manual settings on a screen?
I mean, I have an X-T1, Ive never owned a dslr brick. But I would rather carry the brick than a meme camera with a bunch if limitations. Especially if they are m3/4 p&s
It seems really silly to invest about a grand into a baby sized camera with a number of image limitations just so it feels better
>>2741250
Depends on the camera and how you're using it. I don't have anything with a zoom on it and there are definitely times where I think "ah, if I had a little more reach that'd look good", but it's just a trade off that I accept because I prioritise size and weight. Having to use the screen can be a bit of a bummer, but I'd rather be shooting on a screen than not shooting at all.
I see your point though. For you image limitations are a bigger deal than comfort, for me it's just the other way around. I tried DSLRs but they just weren't for me, I'd rather have more images that I like that are of lesser quality than fewer images that I like of a higher quality. I'm not someone who thinks the quality gap has been completely closed, but it's close enough for me.
I paid something like £600-£650 for my fuji x100 (the original one), and I've used it enough since then that I'd definitely consider it worth that price from my perspective, but it's definitely an investment. If I'd paid that for a DSLR+lens that I wouldn't have used as much it would be worse value.
The main limitations I've found are lack of affordable/easy to use accessories. You can take a wide range of cheap flashes and have them work with a DSLR, whereas I've been more limited in that respect.
>>2741261
If thats what you like then I wont knock you,
but are you not concerned with setting your standard as a high as possible with beautiful photos, instead of generating loads of good/meh photos? I havent seen your work so I cant criticize. I remember one GR photo someone has posted on here that makes me cum buckets, it's a cityscape with some delicious evening light breaking through the clouds.
Perhaps its you
>>2741265
When I talk about quality I'm talking about pure image quality, not the beauty of the actual photo. Like in terms of DXO scores or something. The point I'm trying to make is that I'd take a lesser sensor that I'd use more often, over a better sensor that I'd use less.
This is one of mine with the fuji and a magnifying glass lens to make the macro setting a bit stronger.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2741266
sorry, that's a little bigger than they ask for. This should be a little smaller.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2741267
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2740022
>50mm not a telephoto
pls
>>2741268
That's pretty stellar man
I took some of my favorite photos on a point & shoot and I definitely should get another.
>>2741997
Thanks, I was worried the compression in the resizer had messed them up a bit too much! Much appreciated. There's definitely something to be said about having a camera with you at all times, the clouds were moving pretty fast.
My only problem with the X70 is that it's not worth carrying over an X-T10 w/ a 18mm lens.
The X100 series always held the pancake 23 over the competition because there was no alternative.
I'd have liked to have seen Fuji release an 23mm f2.0 XF pancake at the same time as the X70 desu.
Kinda a weird that they are basically telling that 28 is less valuable than 35mm.
A cheaper model is ok, but what would cost them to make a X100 with 28mm and a X70 with a 35mm?
Take out the X100 and X100s from the market.
>>2744962
By changing the X100 lens they will potentially end the life of their current X100 wide and tele conversion lenses, one of which already allows conversion down to 28mm
I can't see the x70 replacing the GR for those that need a GR to do what a GR does best: be invisible.
Like I don't think you can turn off the screen, snap focus and wing it stealthy style.
But I do like fooj jpegs, and wouldn't mind a snapshit companion piece for when it's too inconvenient to carry around my x-t1 (strap, case, lenses, batts etc.).
We'll see.
800 bucks for something that's not a main priority means I'll give it a few months.
I like that it's got instax print linkability so I could hand out some instant snapshits to the various basic bitches I encounter in my mundane existence.
X-Pro 2 Hands-on https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tQmKcmC8Kmg
HAPPENING!
Just watched Bigheadtaco's preview of this camera. The X100 hood & conversion lenses fit it... though obviously the latter aren't corrected.
Now I'm thinking, a native 28mm you could convert to 21mm and 35mm... It kind of starts to feel like a serious contender to a GR for me.
>>2744967
The X-70 is way too gimmicky. A stealthy APS-C pro p+s needs to be simple. The Fuji has knobs, wheels, buttons, a two-tone body and it simply doesn't look like a fuckcheap p+s camera no thief would ever steal from you.
>>2746281
The knobs and wheels mean you can get full manual control of the camera without it being on, or to your eye, which can be very good for being discreet. The two-tone thing is an option, if you want it. Pic related.
>>2746287
>full manual control of the camera without it being on, or to your eye,
IMO this is the reason to get this camera.
I wanted that when I bought my Fuji x10 years ago, but it just wasn't there.
This is the camera to get if you want the x100* line without paying for the x100* line.
I will be recommending this camera to people who are trying to get into photography. You can chuck in full auto or experiment with manual controls as you see fit. The prime lens teaches people to walk with their camera to get the shot they want.
Sweet, Fuji lowered the price for x70 by the whole 100 bucks. 699 now instead of 799.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer AMockus Image-Specific Properties:
>>2747779
>699 now instead of 799.
>$700 instead of $800
>$700 for a point and shoot
>not even full frame
>no VF
the goy and his shekels are soon parted.
>>2738807
I'd consider one if it had a viewfinder. Considering it has a fixed focal length it would have been piss easy but nooooo, we have to hold it up and squint at a screen
>>2748092
So you're saying you'd consider an X100?
>>2748086
>Point and shoot
>Fully tactile manual controls, including manual focus if you want it
>Fuji's amazing sensors
>Fuji's amazing image quality
You're welcome to not buy it, but I'm excited to have it. Didn't like the GR, and I'm glad this exists.
>>2748097
you mean sony's last gen sensor with some magic colour filter?
>>2748109
Yeah, exactly. Also, no AA filter.
>>2748097
that ovf option tho
so hot
>>2744868
it doesn't need to be better than an xt10 and 18mm, it's hundreds of dollars cheaper than that combination.
>>2748086
I'd buy more cameras if they had an aperture ring, shutter speed dial and distance scales on the lenses.
It seems other companies just don't want my money.
Not sure if worth getting if you already have a Ricoh GR.
Even though I have a GR, I still kind of want one, though.
>>2748187
same. can't part with the GR tho.
>>2748093
yes I would but an X100 has a 23mm lens while this has an 18mm lens. It'd be nice if they both had viewfinders and you could play with them a bit and buy whichever felt best but I couldn't really see myself paying all that money for a camera that I had to hold like a phone
>>2738963
i beg to differ m8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:11:23 23:06:09 Exposure Time 30 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -6.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 766 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2739053
how is this camera? was thiking of copping to replace my iphone
>>2738807
the cameras not even 1k
>>2751184
Thats why I said "under $1k"
>>2738901
Just put on a UV filter and leave your lens cap at home. Fuck lens caps.
>>2751452
oh, well i think it would be
seems like a pretty good camera
>>2739079
Out of focus.
Ugly white flash on the face.
>X70 price drops $100 after announcement
>yfw it's because nobody cares about it and nobody has preordered it
>>2752342
You realize cameras aren't a team sport right
>>2752342
It's a niche camera for enthusiasts - just like the GR, the Coolpix A or even the DP series. It's not like Fuji is going to sell shitloads of this camera.. but $799 was a bit much.
>>2752359
It's like, for the price, they could have gotten away with a faster lens, made the x70 like a digital Natura by giving it a 16mm f/1.9
>>2752374
Gear queering ass gearfaggot lusting over thick lenses all up in his shit over here.
>>2738807
Oh look another expensive p&s
>>2752375
>Isi being ratchet
>>2752374
and would it then still fit in my pocket? no? then I'll just take the superior x100 series then, thanks.
>>2752614
The original Natura black f1.9 was fucking tiny, and it was full frame. Granted the lens was collapsible and when collapsed was basically touching the film, but
>>2752621
the problem is that digital camera sensors aren't paper thin.. depending on the camera they can be a cm or an inch thick. for all we know, the back of the 28 2.8 could be touching the sensor dxo one style.
>>2748314
ayy lmao is this t fulton?
>2015+1
>Still using fixed focal length
Hahaha oh wow
I'll stick with my rx100
see:
http://www.donsmithblog.com/2015/10/10/review-of-sony-dsc-rx100-iv-the-perfect-compact-landscape-camera/
