Fuji X100 as a "reporter camera"

Here's a review of the Fuji X100 as a reporter camera. Or more precisely, as a prospective wedding camera.

I'll be honest: I don't like this camera. I'm not about to invest $1,200 in buying one so I don't have any firsthand experience but I've read a lot of reviews and looked at a lot of sample images. Judging from the images in the review linked above, you can see a clear difference between the clarity of a Canon 5D Mark II and the muddled look of a Fuji X100. All the X100 photos I've seen look soft, grey and digital.

This may be a bit of an unfair comparison because the 5D is a full-frame camera but there are also a lot of other choices out there. For the same price as the single focal length Fuji X100, I could get Samsung NX20 (when it comes out) with a fast 16mm or 30mm lens. Or a Panasonic G3 with a 14mm f/2.5 lens. Or an Olympus E-P3 with a 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens. While the Fuji may have better resolution than its mirrorless peers (hard to say since the NX20 hasn't been released yet), any one of these cheaper competitors can beat the Fuji on manual focus capability, versatility, and I'm sure other things as well. The poor manual focus on the X100 is a special sore point.

What's the point of having solid vintage-type body, an f/2 lens and a high ISO sensor if you still have to rely on autofocus? Might as well be using a Canon Rebel.

If you would for some reason like to buy an Fuji X100, a Panasonic G3, an Optio WG-1 or any other camera, please click on one of our sponsors at right.

Comments

[Marc Fuji]

I'm not too keen on the Fujifilm X100 eighter. Too expensive for what you get. Although not perfect, the image quality is better then the image quality of the Panasonic G3 or the Olympus E-P3. Those camera's just don't give good results at ISO800 and higher. Anything shot at a lower ISO has more noise then the Fuji images too. I do like the 'crisp' look of the images of the G3. The contrast seems higher. I think 500-600 euro's is the right price for the Fuji X100.