So, I think I’ve decided on the X100s.
Well, all the big boy X-Series cameras come with (essentially) the same spec’ed sensor and (essentially) the same feature sets. This wasn’t the case until the X100 “s” version arrived on the scene. Now however, things are level in this respect and the X100s is a contender.
Further, there does not seem to be an X-Pro2 (or “s”) on the horizon anytime soon. So, the fastest focussing, best-est sensor / processor set is on the X100s.
Also, despite the fact that I am becoming ever more interested in rural environment photography,* where I might need more reach, I always have been almost exclusively either a 50mm or 35mm kind of person. Mostly 35mm. I don’t really see this changing too much. So, a fixed lens 35mm equivalent camera might be no biggy (note the “might”).
The final point is the crucial one. Despite, or rather, regardless of all the juicy goodness that the X-Trans sensors and associated technology bring to the table, my main and overriding attraction to these Fujifilm cameras is the rangefinder-esque optical viewfinder.** The loverly joverly overlay enhanced window to the world optical viewfinder. Slurp! And in this regard, I find the X100(s) version just plain yummier.
Comparing the X-Pro1 viewfinder to my M6’s one, I find the X-Pro1’s to be just fine. There are no real problems with it at all. It is in fact, great. The thing is though, the X100(s) viewfinder it better. It’s just that little bit larger, and it’s brighter.
Online, this ‘bigger’ question has been debated. People claim they are the same size and use arguments such as ‘the angles of view are not comparable / the magnification is not the same / you probably have the wrong magnification activated / etc,’ However, as this person clearly demonstrates here when addressing exactly what he is and is not talking about, the size of the actual physical viewfinder device itself on the X100(s) is larger than the similar device on the X-Pro1.
Regardless of who is right or wrong on this point, the fact remains that when switching back and forth between an X-Pro1 and an X100(s), the latter appears nicer to me. It is physically larger, it is less tunnel-like (not that the X-Pro1 is all that tunnel-like) and it is brighter. Perhaps being shorter allows more light in and hence it is brighter. Who knows, maybe the larger apparent size only makes it appear less tunnel-like and it is brighter for some other reason? None of that technical stuff really matters, the fact of the experience remains.
Another point is that the camera is smaller. Not that the X-Pro1 is all that large – it’s around the size of a Leica M, and I’ve carried one of those on a daily basis for years. However, the X100s is smaller and therefore easier to carry everywhere, and I like having a decent camera with me as often as possible.
What are the cons? Well, first of all, the few of my photos that have ended up on other people’s walls however, have almost all been my so-called rural-scapes. So, it would seem that a camera with more reach might be a better choice.
Secondly, umm, well, that’s about it. That first one is the only con I can think of at the moment.
No wait, there is one more. I’ll address that in the next post.
Typed with a little help from Nina.
* or, ‘rural-scapes’ – how I tend to see / describe the type of ‘landscape’ photography that interests me
** thus the X-E1 is not even under consideration. Also, harking back to the third paragraph, until the “s” version X100 arrived, there was actually only one contender