I am writing this review from the perspective of someone who owns a Nikon full-frame dSLR (Nikon D700+MB-D10), two Nikon crop dSLR (Nikon D7000+MB-D11 and Nikon D3100) and an m4/3 camera (Panasonic GH2).
I receive the Fujifilm X100 about 5 days ago and since then, I have been slowly learning the features and capabilities of this camera. I will be steadily adding to this review in the coming days but I thought I'd share here my initial impressions of the X100 to help those wondering whether to get this camera make their decision.
Though I tried my hand at using small cameras that can shot RAW and provide full manual controls on aperture, shutter speed, ISO and White Balance (the Panasonic LX-3 and the Canon S90 being among these), I was never happy with the marginal photos that I could take with these cameras. This is mainly due to the small-sized camera sensor. Yet part of my dis-satisfaction with these cameras is also due to the shooting position where one extends one's arms to view and compose with the rear LCD screen rather than the viewfinder to the eye position when using a dSLR. After trying my hand with these cameras, I sold them but knew that my next small and light camera must have a large sensor and a proper viewfinder.
My initial attempt to finally address this issue on poor image quality and sub-optimal shooting stance yet have a small and compact camera was my purchase of the Nikon D3100 which I paired with a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. Equipped with a good-sized sensor, a real optical view finder (OVF) and a very capable lens, this setup provided me with a compact, light, inexpensive and very capable camera setup. I was very happy with the setup and it provided me some relief from using the D700+MB-D10 or D7000+MB-D11 combo. Though I did install and use my other Nikkor lenses on the D3100, it was the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX that was mounted on the D3100 easily 50% of the time. For the other times, it was mainly the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G at 40% of the time and the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 or the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for the remaining 10%. I would have used the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G far more often with the D3100 than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX but the large size and heavy weight of the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G lens does not make for a light and well-balanced combo with the D3100. So as much as I would have preferred matching the D3100 with a 24mm focal length prime lens, the lighter weight and smaller size of the 35mm f/1.8G DX made it the default lens for the D3100.
I also acquired a Panasonic GH2. Though equipped with a smaller m4/3 sensor, the GH2 acquits itself very well for video work and the 14-140mm lens provided good results when shooting outdoors or in good lighting conditions. But for still-photography, the GH2 with the 14-140mm lens is simply awful. For a while, I had the impression that the GH2 was very bad for still photos until I decided to buy an adapter and mounted my Nikkor prime lenses on the GH2. Wow .. what a difference mounting good lenses made on the quality of photos the GH2 can take. I found myself using the GH2 more and more often for still-photos even though I had to manually focus my Nikkor lenses. The GH2 was my first exposure to an electronic viewfinder (EVF) and despite its real limitations when working in sub-optimally lighted conditions, I appreciated the ability of the EVF of the GH2 to display information that an OVF could not display. I decided to add a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5 lens and was happy with the resulting setup which was even more compact and lighter than my Nikon D3100 and 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. While the image quality of the Nikon D3100 was still better than the GH2, the smaller lighter size of the GH2 and its excellent video capabilities made it my choice for many situations.
Then came the Fujifilm X100. Combining the small compact size of the GH2 and its compact prime lenses plus incorporating the advantages of both the optical viewfinder of the D3100 and the electronic viewfinder of the GH2, I became seriously interested in the X100. The fact that the lens was not interchangeable was not an issue for me as the X100 lens is a 23mm f/2.0 - the perfect focal length as far as I was concerned. The 35mm equivalent of 35mm would have been my favorite focal length with the D3100 and the GH2 but neither Nikon nor Panasonic makes a compact and light prime lens that has a fast 35mm in 35mm equivalent (Olympus makes a m4/3 17mm but it is just f/2.8). That the X100 lens was also a fast f/2.0 lens was definitely an ace in favor of the X100. While cleaning the sensor of my D700, I realized another reason why the non-interchangeable lens nature of the X100 was a non-issue. With a non-removable lens, the X100 will likely not need any sensor cleaning at all, I happily realized. Yes!
Viewed sideways, the X100 was considerably smaller and thinner than the D3100 with the 35mm f/1.8GDX lens and still substantially thinner than the GH2 with the 20mm f/1.7 lens. The X100 wins against the two others on this point.
Based on my initial test, the image quality of the X100 is excellent and can easily hold its own against the Nikkor D3100 with the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. This is quite an achievement as the Nikon-Nikkor combo is superb. While the X100 is a bit soft when shot wide-open at f/2.0 compared with the Nikkor D3100 shooting the 35mm f/1.8G DX at f/2.0, I like the way the X100 renders the image which is very pleasing and of a different character than the clinical images I could take with the Nikon D3100 and the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. Testing both at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 yielded even better results with the X100 while the Nikkor D3100 with the 35mm f/1.8G DX stayed very good as well (it was really good wide-open to begin with anyway). In terms of image quality, I would rank these two at about equal.
What for me tilts the balance in favor of the X100 is the focal length of its lens - 23mm vs the 35mm of the Nikkor. So while the image quality for both are neck-to-neck, I much prefer the X100 because of its lens' focal length. The GH2 ranks lower than the X100 and D3100 in image quality and with the X100 being thinner and having both OVF and EVF and with my preferred focal length lens, the X100 is now my first choice for a small and light compact camera.
CONTINUATION - April 12, 2011
In many respects, while there are similarities among the D3100, GH2 and the Fujifilm X100, each is unique and each serves a specific purpose better than the other.
The primary advantage of the D3100 is that it packs a lot of capabilities and flexibility for its size. These advantages however are lost when one installs a zoom lens on the D3100 as the resulting bulk and weight no longer qualifies it as a light and compact camera. Until such time that Nikon releases several compact and light prime AF-S lenses that will auto-focus on the D3100, the D3100 steps out of the light-and-compact auto-focusing camera competition when equipped with other than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX.
For video work, the GH2 remains the best tool for the job, with the D3100 and the X100 a far second and third. In addition to a far superior video capabilities, the GH2 has a electronic zoom that essentially gives the user a 2nd lens when using the pancake prime lens. Very impressively, this electronic zoom (or "ETC" in Panasonic parlance) can be used without any significant or visible degradation in the captured video and provides the GH2 a flexibility that other manufacturers would do well to emulate. The availability of several good light and very compact interchangeable pancake prime lenses adds further to the attraction of the GH2 as a video camera - as well as a still photography camera. This makes the GH2 a better tool for those who want to capture still photos and videos at the same time. The only disadvantage that I see to the GH2 is its low-light performance which is best described as adequate but not exceptional. This is partly due to its smaller sensor and higher pixel density. While using fast primes such as the 20mm f/1.7 can often delay the onset of having have to use higher ISO, the GH2 would truly be exceptional if it had better low-light performance and will likely be the toughest hombre to beat among the three.
The Fujifilm X100 as a still camera is excellent for a select group of photographers who are not limited by the fixed-lens as its performance as a still camera is nothing short of excellent. In terms of low-light performance, the Fujifilm X100 outclasses the D3100 when shooting at ISO 3200 and even more so at ISO 6400 where the X100 still yields very good images. Combine with the f/2.0 lens, the X100 users will likely have minimal need of bringing an external flash. For a narrower select group of photographers who are not hobbled by the fixed lens, the Fujifilm X100 is one of the most exciting camera in the market.
CONTINUATION April 15, 2011
Fujifilm's decision to equip the X100 with a fixed non-interchangeable lens has allowed it to make the camera and lens smaller, and to add several features unique to the X100. This setup dispense with the need to use a focal plane shutter so unlike a dSLR where the shutter is found in the body, the shutter of the X100 is found in its lens. The combination of a quiet leaf shutter on the lens and the absence of a mirror-slapping noise means that it is possible for me to shoot the X100 very discretely even in a quiet room. Even continuous shooting with the X100 generates little noise. The shutter sound of the X100 shooting continuously is unobtrusive unlike the loud staccato clatter of the dSLR.
Another feature the fixed lens arrangement allowed is for Fujifilm to install a built-in 3-stops neutral density filter in the X100.
Read more ›