Poorfag here. Saw a great deal for an X100s for $550. A this

fuck yeah. haggle him down to $500 (or less) and enjoy your awesome camera

>>2808143
I liked mine a lot. Only changed to the X-T1 because I needed longer focal lengths for portraiture.

>>2808143
I got mine for 650 nzd ~500 usd. I like it but after the update on my X-E2 it feels dog slow. I don't understand how people say the X-E1 is slow when it's the same speed as the X100s

>>2808143
I am also a poorfag who recently bought this camera for $550.

Don't do it. It's so slow it's almost unusable. Getting things in focus with this camera is a pain in the ass and makes using it wholly unenjoyable. It rips through batteries and has a lot of settings that make little sense or were poorly programmed.

It's a machine that can make great files, but it feels like a bit of a failure as an overall camera when you have to use it.

This prob belongs in the gear thread btw

Meme6000 will both produce better images and is actually smaller and lighter than this compact.

>>2808296
Can confirm, have one

>>2808296

>bayer

kek. nice try, sony shill. i'm sure there's a canonfag with low self-esteem somewhere that is ready for your abuse.

>>2808143
Got one 4 days ago. Felt like I had to relearn how to shoot photos a little as it is a totally different system from my dslr. It does eat batteries fast and the auto focus can take a second longer than I am use to. That being said it has felt very freeing to use it when I am out and about. One camera/lens that produces good quality images. I would call it a good travel/fun camera. I would say worth 500ish

Not OP, but is the original X100 still worth getting?

>>2808381

Some people prefer the original ccd's color rendition over the xtrans CMOS sensor.

I doubt very much that the x100 can beat the x100s's isoless sensor in highlight and shadow recovery or high noise, but it's still a great camera that launched a whole niche.

>>2808381
It's a piece of shit. It set a precedent though. X100S, X100T, and X70 are 100% better cameras if you're looking for that kind of camera/look of camera from fujifilm.

Back on topic, I've had the X100S for about a year now for $500. The autofocus is slower compared to what I used to shoot (t3i). You get used to it if you know how to zone focus and you're not shooting a running subject. But it is a bit smaller and the looks are killer.

If you give no fucks about looks, go buy a sony a6000 or an RX100 2 or 3 or some other compact with better AF because that will 100% be your biggest gripe on the camera. The rest of the machine is pretty damn good. My only other gripe is that you can't program the dial to change ISO which I think you can on the X100T. You have to settle for using the Function button.

Aside from looking like a special snowflake, why on earth would you want to buy this over any number of other much better cameras?

File: _DSF2657correct.jpg (562KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1000x1500px

>>2808143
I liked mine quite a bit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2808416

It's a fun little camera. I have a D810 and an x100s, and I usually reach for the X100s when I'm heading out. It's hard to describe until you've actually used it, but Fuji has crafted a wonderful shooting experience.

>>2808385
>It's a piece of shit.

What the fuck am I reading. It's one of the best cameras I've ever used and makes some of the best looking images I've seen from a digital camera. Using it sometimes makes me smile from joy.

For the used price you can get it now I can absolutely recommend it. The only thing it lacks is in my opinion an ISO dial but then again I wouldn't know where to fit it. Having more resolution would be nice and better low light performance couldn't hurt but it's still absolutely great as it is if you don't need interchangable lenses.

>>2808416
What other cameras are "much better"?
>inb4 Sony shill

>>2808416

better cameras are a meme

>>2808143
x70

>>2808329

Just because you mix around the filters doesn't make your tranny array much better.

Despite your bait, Canon is the only manufacturer looking to go beyond Bayer besides Sigma.

>>2808533
>i will reject superior equipment in the same price range in favour of being cool on 4chan

Knock yourself out, senpai.

>>2808558
>Just because you mix around the filters doesn't make your tranny array much better.
No, but the lack of AA filter, and the lack of moire does.

>>2808654
Which camera has all manual controls right on the body, a viewfinder, a tiny fast lens, and a great style as a cherry on top?

>>2808296
shitty plastic body
no lenses

>>2808687
As opposed to OP, which has literal gorillions of lenses.

>>2808730
Well, three lenses for a fixed compact is pretty impressive... But yeah...

So what's the general consensus on the "film simulations"? Are they just glorified VSCO-filters or did the Fuji emulsion wizards achieve something beyond that?

>>2808842
They work differently than filters. The filters take the image as is, and alter it by adding stuff on top. With the film simulations with Fuji, it actually alters the math the processor is doing to the raw data. Certain simulations will expand skin tone rendering to allow for more tones in skin, for example. The simulations go in the camera calibration tab in lightroom (rather than presets on the left) for that reason, it's fundamentally altering the algorithm that processes the image.

On the XPro2, also, there is extra stuff going on, where in the Acros simulation, the camera is adding more grain effect to the shadows, and applying different tone curves to different areas of the scene depending on brightness values and colors, too, and no filter after the fact is going to duplicate that. You can mimic it by going in and using blend-if sliders or masks, but it's still changing the file after the fact, which behaves a bit differently than what the camera is doing at the time of capture.

>>2808860

I dunno about all that. They definitely feel like vsco-tier simulations to me.

>>2808860
Thanks for the in-depth reply. I recently bought the X100T and I love the filters so far, especially Astia. Wish Acros was coming to it as well, but it won't since the sensor can't handle it (according to Fuji).

Anyone having any experience with the converters?

>>2808864
Well, none of that is my opinion, it's how the cameras work, but that's fine if it just feels like a filter to you.

I shoot portraits, and when I shoot something in raw, if I apply the Provia calibration, the skin doesn't work as nicely as if I use a ProNeg calibration base. There's certainly a difference in the foundation of the image, which is important to me when I use the calibrations as a starting point and push the edit from there.

>>2808382
og x100 does not have a ccd sensor lmao

>>2808865
Yeah it's a shame they can't port it backwards. It's a beautiful thing. Minor correction, it's the processor that can't handle it, rather than the sensor.

You shouldn't let it bug you too much though. Add some tweaks to the tones in your B&W and you can still get sort of close, though it doesn't do the "magic" (read: tone curve) to preserve the highlights that the Acros does.

I've got a B&W custom profile on my X-T1 to match my XPro2 and while you can still tell the difference, it has the spirit of it, which is enough for me. I don't remember exactly how I have it set up right now, or I'd post the recipe for you.

>>2808381
The X100T is the only of the three that has a hybrid viewfinder which projwcts a blow-up of the image in the lower right corner, assisting incredibly well with manual focus. That alone is enough (for me) to count out the earlier two models.

Since this seems now to be an X100 thread in general…rumor has it that LR doesn't handle the X-Trans sensor very well. Does this mean that the final photo will be different once it's imported to LR and does it only affect RAWs?

>>2808932
It only affects raws. Lightroom looks at the raw data, and struggles with dealing with fine detail. If you shoot raw, open in something else (Like Iridient) and save out as a TIFF, you won't have the issue anymore. It also won't affect jpegs shot from the camera.

>>2808860
So... filters.

>>2808952
No, but if all you do is click through things until it looks good, you wouldn't really notice the difference. The main functional difference comes in when you're doing editing after selecting the calibration.

>>2808979

Pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

>>2808979
you have no idea what you're talking about
the profiles in adobe dont do anything to your raw file except serve as presets.

you're making it out to be way more in-depth than it is. It's just raw-to-jpeg presettings.

>>2808982
Please post your resource for learning that camera calibration in lightroom is the same as applying a filter on top of the image.

>>2808982
>>2808983
At least he can't accuse you of being samefags.

>>2808985

A few years of applying VSCO to my snapshits, for one.

You know that the camera profiles in lightroom's camera calibration tab are just approximations of the fuji profiles, right? They don't actually have anything to do with your camera.

And a preset "on the left" really just messes with the stuff "on the right", right?

>>2808994
Applying VSCO in lightroom adjusts all the sliders. Applying a camera calibration doesn't. So even if he's wrong about them being presets, you're wrong that they're the same as VSCO in their implementation.

>>2808998

They both start with camera calibration and are fundamentally the same. You could zero out all of the other modules and it would still look "vsco".

That guy is wrong through and through, though.

>>2809001
>You could zero out all of the other modules and it would still look "vsco".
That is not correct. I just tried it.

>>2809004
Uh yes it is. I just tried it.

Reset the photo to nothing. Create duplicate copy. Pick a preset from the left. Go through and reset absolutely everything. Then toggle back and forth between them, and they're different.

>>2809006
Did you forget to remove all the control points in the individual channels of the tone curve? Guarantee you did.

Just get a Leica CL and a 40mm Summicron with 50 rolls of film.

Fuji users need uncuck themselves and pony up for a Leica, all fuji tries to be anyway.

>>2809011
>No wifi
Leica Pls.

I fail to see the point in buying a compact that is both heavier and larger than a MILC that is technically superior in every single regard.

>>2809015
Which one are you talking about?

>>2808143


just get an a6000

>>2809019
A6000, as stated multiple times in this thread.

>>2809021
Oh, the one that's larger, heavier, and absolutely completely different? It has less physical controls, no optical finder, etc.

>>2809032
It is both smaller and lighter. Look it up. Also, fewer.

>>2808998

Just because a Fuji profile doesn't adjust the sliders outside of camera calibration doesn't mean that a fuji film simulation doesn't adjust the equivalent sliders (or curves, because sliders are just fucking curves) in-camera.

>>2809036
Well I assume you'd want to put a lens on it. Most people take photos with their cameras, and that's tough, body only.

Also fewer what?

There's one on my craigslist for 300

It's a great camera. Gf had it for a year and I shot with it sometimes, and when I could afford my own camera I went with a Fuji too because I liked it so much. I did get the X-T10 instead though, because I wanted to change lenses. Though the X100's do have the converters and at least the tele one was very good.

The AF is a bit slow on it and it does like to eat batteries. I also agree on the ISO dial though I honestly didn't care back when I tried it, but I have a GR now and love how it works on that. Which is the reason I don't own an X100 series myself, because I like the GR a lot for what I do, it's smaller and it was a lot cheaper too.

But it's a great camera and it takes great pictures. Gf shot all of her work with it for the time she had it because it was so much smaller and more fun to use than her Canon kit.

>>2809011
obvious troll is obvious

OP here. Bought the x100s. Love it. Also I own a Leica M3 with said 40mm summicron. This is my digital companion to Leica masterrace

>>2809020
dude, cmon. You can't compare those two cameras. it's about the feel. sony is a consumer electronics company, even their full frame cameras feel like fucking toys.

File: 2016-04-06 00_55_29-Google Image Result for https___i.ytimg.com_vi_THHOeAN5A30_maxresdefault.jpg.png (362KB, 669x427px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 669x427px

>>2809039
That is almost entirely wrong. The A6000 is 120x45x67mm and weights 344g. The X100s is 127x54x74mm and weights 445g. Whichever way you put it, the Sony is smaller both in width and height. This leaves us with the lens. The nearest comparable lens to the X100s's is the SEL20F28, which produces excellent IQ and weights 69g, making the whole system still 32g lighter. In terms of size, it sticks out minimally over the grip making the whole system just slightly thicker than the X100s. I would not argue that the A6000+SEL20F28 is easily pocketable, but neither is the X100s, making it both a less than ideal compact while still lacking the glass versatility of a full ILC. I frankly don't see a reason to buy it other than as a fashion accessory for your girlfriend, while saving money for that Leica.

Fewer physical controls, not less physical controls. Grammar.

File: 1340747599091.png (119KB, 217x230px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 217x230px

>mfw I want an a6000 but I have a lot of 35mm lenses that would be great for full frame but I'm too poor to get an a7s and I don't really want to settle for an a7

kill me

>>2809080
They are all consumer electronics companies.

>>2809080
>make something heavier than it needs to be
>instantly turns to industrial-grade shit

>>2809082

>it's a cherry-picking sonygger post

wew lad. lemme know when you guys have a lens equivalent to the one on the x100s.

And no, f/2.8 is not equivalent.

>>2809099
You're a dumbfuck, we got it, here's your attention. You are welcome to piss off now and let adults talk.

>>2809110

lol mad. i wish "a6000" was a bannable offense. worst userbase on the board.

>>2809099
You sound like a little bitch, but enjoy your new camera, anon. Better leave this thread now, before anons give you more testable reasons as to why you have made a shit purchase. ;-)

>>2809085
Don't bother with the 1st series of A7s, save up and get a used A7II. All three of them are pretty lackluster, and they're plagued by problems that make them feel like they were rushed to the market; and they probably were.

t. A7 user

>>2809115
>i wish "a6000" was a bannable offense. worst userbase on the board.

As opposed to breaking the rules of this board and posting gearfaggotry outside of the gear thread.

>>2809119

What? Gear threads aren't against the rules.

/p/ - Photography
>Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
>Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
>Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.
>Include a short description with your photograph, such as when and where it was photographed and under what circumstances.
>As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated.

File: guidelines.gif (841KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 245x245px

>>2809119
>>2809121
>Do Not Want:
>• Go to >>>/r/ for specific Photoshop requests.
>• Gear threads are discouraged, but identified as necessary. Many users simply hide these threads.

>>2809122

Sticky =/= rules, homie. I hid the sticky the day it got posted, and so should you.

This thread turned out much more interesting than the OP, who sounds like a bit of a faggot desu.

>>2809124

Actually, I should say the day it got reposted, since there's been two iterations, both horrifically destructive to the board culture.

>>2809118
I want the a7sii but hot damn its spensive

>>2809122
So why not merely hide the thread? But then I guess what would you do with your shitty retarded attitude... It would just build up and drown you huh?

File: woman-looking-at-penises.jpg (131KB, 620x890px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 620x890px

>>2809127
>board culture

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	120 dpi
Vertical Resolution	120 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:26 07:04:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	620
Image Height	890

>>2809082
maybe we like the feel of the fuji? The sony a6000 is not some end-all be-all camera. there's a reason so many people prefer the fuji. chill out, get over it. make work with your a6000, let others make work with x100s's and t's, stop stroking your sony boner

>>2809125
What makes me a faggot? I literally just posted once in this thread after my original post, just to say I ended up buying the camera and I love it. But, I guess this is 4Chan, it's easy to call strangers faggots. Guess I should've expected it

>>2809208
You start a worthless thread, only reply once in your worthless thread, and you wonder why you're a faggot?

>>2809205
It absolutely is not end-all-be-all, but it is also not heavier and, depending on how you look at it, larger than the X100s. It is also vastly superior from the technical point of view, which is not surprising considering that it is a newer device and that Sony (and by extension Nikon) is the current leader when it comes to sensors. Stop being a faggot and pretending like it is somehow sonigger shilling.

Whatever you like subjectively has no effect on the aforementioned testable characteristics. I like French chocolate pastries, but I'm not going to argue like a faggot that they are better for you than a fruit salad. If all you want to argue for is that you just like the "experience", sure, enjoy.

>>2809208
Lying about having posted once after your original post makes you a faggot. ;-)

>>2809213

Fuji has a Sony sensor, brah.

>>2809208
If you actually said you owned a Lecia with a Summicron from the beginning the answer would have been obvious but now this whole thread became a Fuji vs Sony cuckfest

why do all fuji and sony threads turn to shit

>>2809387
All threads turn to shit when Sony shills show up.

Just sell personal belongings until you can afford Leica Q

File: 13452082395_124f419713_b[1].jpg (157KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 950x633px

>>2808425
i know im not on /s/ but holy shit those hips, that belly, that body.... 10/10

is it true that Fujishills get laid with sexy women more than sonyshills?

>>2809461
If that's true, I am selling my meme6000

>>2809403
Personally, I hate faggots like you a lot more. Sony shills at least lay out why you should consider buying their camera on a fairly objective basis. All we get from you is screeching "shill" whenever anything even remotely related to Sony is posted in a thread. It's not very productive.

>>2808873
>I don't remember exactly how I have it set up right now, or I'd post the recipe for you.
Not him, but another x-t1 totting anon that's interested in your formula.
God damn I love me some film sims.

>>2809498
>Sony shills at least lay out why you should consider buying their camera on a fairly objective basis
youve got to be fucking kidding me.

>>2809498
every time someone starts a thread for a certain manufacturer, be it pentacks, be it fuji, be it nikon, canon (and even ricoh) theres ALWAYS some sony shills who will shitpost with their memes.

Im not saying Sony is bad though. Its actually a really good camera manufacturer. But some of you got to stop being so invasive everywhere, cause it starts to look like your trying to justify your purchase.

>>2809538
The question in OP is whether the camera is worth buying these days. That is not a "let's talk about Fuji and nothing else" question. If it was meant to be one, he should have formulated the question better.

I frankly don't care about the feel and the magic of whatever camera, whether it is Sony, Fuji or any other manufacturer. If it was a discussion of underwater cameras, Nikon would be a good thing to recommend. Since it is a $500 semi-pocketable camera discussion, it would be a disservice to OP not to mention the A6000. Once someone did though, it immediately turned into sperglords yelling the word "shills". The inability of the members of this board to discuss photographic equipment on its merits rather than its logo is beyond pathetic.

Hell, even fucking /v/ doesn't argue that the xbone has better performance than the PS4 or PC (outside of obvious shitposting threads).

>>2809538

>sony
>camera manufacturer

no

>>2809517
Shit, I forgot to check it yesterday. I'll get it for you bros. Hopefully tonight.

>>2809498
>Sony shills at least lay out why you should consider buying their camera on a fairly objective basis.
You mean like when they say it's smaller when it isn't (because you have to put a lens on it), or cheaper when it isn't (because you have to put a lens on it), or better image quality when it isn't (because it's got an AA filter to cancel out the higher megapixel count, and everything else is the same)? Stuff like that?

>>2809542
>Once someone did though, it immediately turned into sperglords yelling the word "shills".
Saying "Check out the a6000" is fine. It's good advice. Saying "this is garbage the a6000 is better in every way and every boxed a6000 actually comes with a blank check from Sony so you're actually MAKING money and did you know that it also comes with two hot naked models right in the box so you have something awesome to shoot and it processes all your photos for you, and it weighs only 3 ounces and the whole camera is so small it will fit in your wallet" bullshit.

People don't hate the camera, or the people who use it. People don't even hate the people who are objective about its strengths (autofocus) and weaknesses (everything else). People hate the asshole(s) who come in and lie about it. Who never actually use it. Who have no clue what they're talking about, and who say shit like "the a6000 with no lens on it is smaller than the x100s which has a lens on it"

>>2809548
>>2809549
I like how you retracted the bit about it being lighter, because that is the one part you absolutely can't be intellectually dishonest about, but still proceed to bullshit yourself that it is larger, despite it being demonstrably at all times smaller on two out of three dimensions and being slightly thicker on the third---though none of us has taken a ruler to it to determine how large the difference is. It is also cheaper, even with a whole array of lenses, if you buy both new. The only thing we can agree on is that it has a better autofocus, which is so blatantly obvious when compared to the completely retarded AF on X100s that I am surprised we even have to mention it.

Quite frankly, you are being entirely unreasonable and I think I'm done with this shit board. As shit and illiterate as the photography community is, where half of the fucking people think that a nifty-fifty on an APS-C sensor is 50mm, I am yet to see anyone here write anything that would be even close to a fairly mediocre post on dpreview. Please don't let the door hit me on the way out.

>>2809554
>Quite frankly, you are being entirely unreasonable and I think I'm done with this shit board.
Welp, one idiot shill gone. Bring on the rest. We'll clear this place out sooner or later!

>>2809554
Simple mistake on your part. 4chan is exclusively for shitposting. If you want to get better at something or discuss things, you should not go to a website where the average user has just barely hit adulthood.

>>2809554
Have you ever seen someone complain that a camera is too wide side to side, or too tall? I have never once seen this. The only complaint I've ever seen is thickness front to back. That extra thickness side to side and top to bottom also buys you an excellent viewfinder, which is well worth it to many people. So if you're going to say it's smaller on 2 dimensions (which it is) then say it correctly "It's smaller on two unimportant dimensions at the expense of the viewfinder that is the main reason most people buy the X100 and XPro series cameras for in the first place"

One thread again turned to Sonyshit. Why? If you've got an a6000, cool, enjoy it. We have both systems in our house (gf had an X100S and now shoots an A7 kit, I shoot Fuji), and the Sony has no appeal to me, other than plentiful megapickles for film scanning and lack of crop factor for adapting old lenses. Neither of us likes the a6000 though.

>>2809560
Not him, but you are a fucking retard if you think that a rangefinder is anything other than a shitty gimmick.

>>2809565
1) It's not a rangefinder unless you're isi and think that everything with a distance scale is a rangefinder
2) It's not JUST a (great) rangefinder window with a fantastic amount of information and accuracy in it, it's also an excellent EVF whenever you want it to be.

>>2809569
>EVF
>excellent

Nigger, if you want a good view finder, buy a DSLR, not an oversized compact for poorfags who can't afford a Leica.

>>2809571
Really? Which DSLR has an EVF, or shows exposure preview, level, live histogram, processing, highlights warnings, focusing zebras, and magnification in the viewfinder? I'll look into it.

>>2809573
>live histogram

MY FUCKING SIDES! Is this what Sonigger and Fujicucks have cucked themselves into now?

>>2809571
So you're under the mistaken impression that your personal taste is actually factual truth. You should have started with that, we could have saved some time.

>>2809574
Please explain how that could be a bad thing. I'm new to photography and don't understand. I feel like seeing what the exposure is looking like to the camera would be a good thing.

>>2809561
>buys a compact
>isn't really a compact
>b-b-b-but it's more compact than a sony that isn't a compact!
>it's the apple magic

As retarded as soniggers are, at least they have a camera that takes different lenses. Fujicucks seem to be some kind of self-indoctrinated cult.

>>2809577
>I'm new to photography
You don't fucking say.

>>2809573
STFU. Do you know why the X100s costs over a grand new? It is because it includes deep-level processing presets inside the camera that let it produce images on par with 5D Mark III. Not only that, but you can actually carry it in your suit pocket to a classy party and take it out to take great pictures of your boss. DSLR's are dead.

>>2809578
Um, every other aps-c Fuji camera takes other lenses... (And the X100 series has three lenses, technically)

>>2809578
>>I'm new to photography
>You don't fucking say.
So you don't have an answer? or what? Also, you know you can turn off the histogram and not look at it if you don't want to...

>>2809580
Can you also turn off the lag and the noise in the viewfinder? Oh wait, not that it matters with pro sports photography-class autofocus on that beast.

>>2809581
>Can you also turn off the lag and the noise in the viewfinder?
Uh, yeah, but switching it to OVF mode...?

>pro sports photography-class autofocus on that beast.
Why would you be shooting pro sports with a budget compact camera?
Please post one pro sports photo you have personally taken in your entire life suggesting that that feature is important to you, let alone the 99.99976% of photographers who will never even attempt to shoot pro sports? (you know they don't even let you bring real cameras into pro sports arenas/stadiums unless you have a press pass, right)

>>2809581
I took my X100s to several baseball games now and it took great shots. So much so that I use one as a wallpaper in my office and people occasionally walk over, says how great the photo is and even start a bit of a smalltalk by asking who was paying against whom. As >>2809461
put it, Fuji is a camera for a social man.

can we all agree that apsc slr ovfs are total ass?

>>2809582
>OVF mode
Still shilling the entirely redundant shitty rangefinder. Could I interest you in my 2001 digital point and click? It's very pocketable.

File: batmanlaughing.jpg (76KB, 519x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 519x600px

>>2809583
>by asking who was paying against whom

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	519
Image Height	600

>>2809585
Wait, is it redundant? or did it just solve the problem you seemed to have with EVFs...
>Can you also turn off the lag and the noise in the viewfinder?

You're doing REALLY terribly here. I'm not sure if you THINK you're schooling everyone or what, but this is a perfect answer for why people hate Sony backers here on the board. Nothing to do with the camera, and everything to do with your lack of ability to even make a cohesive argument between two posts.

Also, just to throw this out there, if you think the EVFs on Fuji cameras (other than the X-E1 and the XPro1) are laggy and noisy, you've never used one. They're awesome. And the X-T1 is one of the best on the market. The XPro2's refreshes at 85fps. There is *no* lag.

Thread is dope. Fujifags discussing their outdated gimmicky gear, soniggers leaving after figuring out that fujifags can't do maths, anons taking pictures of baseball ages at 35mm equivalent of 35mm.

>>2809588
Holy shit you are a retarded motherfucker. If you want to use a rangefinder, you may as well close your eyes and point in the general direction.

Also
>say that EVFs are shit
>go away sonyshill
>completely ignoring the fact that all of sony's most successful cameras have EVFs

Fujicuck literally entered retarded modo and can't stop.

>>2809585

stop using the word 'rangefinder' incorrectly i'm literally furious now

>>2809593
It's okay, we wouldn't notice even if you took a picture of yourself due to the lack of focus.

>>2809591
But, brah, muh removable viewfinder! I can shoot children and dogs and shit with it very quickly. Fuji's engineers even added the amazing out-of-focus effect that makes everything look ghostly and surreal.

>>2809082
Nice toy camera. Have fun cycling through endless menus to set up a photo while i spin a few manual dials and go on with my day.

Also
>f2.8

LMAO

>>2809596
Not to defend the sonyfags, but that is literally a better lens than the one you have on your dial spinner. The 16mm is utter shit though.

File: KU1j5rCQ3OfozQ4kVgZg_Baby-Reaction.gif (931KB, 396x221px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 396x221px

>>2809592
>If you want to use a rangefinder, you may as well close your eyes and point in the general direction.
WHAT???

Where did he suggest that EVFs are shit?

>>2809586
I don't get what you find so funny about it. The lens on the X100s is amazing for pretty much everything. Fuji could have easily put a lens with more zoom on it, but they chose to give us one that would allow us to capture the whole action rather than a single player out-of-context.

>>2809594
>due to the lack of focus.
Oh it's you.

-Thread minimized.

>>2808143
OP yeah it's good. Have fun with it.

>>2809592

Fuck off you pimp of lies 0/10

>>2809598
Stop talking about yourself in the third person, faggot. You're not the fucking Jar Jar Binks.

>>2809597
Explain how it is better

File: fujifagswhenconfrontedwithreality.jpg (63KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 852x480px

>>2809603
Next you'll tell me that I shoot Sony.

>tfw glorious pentax/nikon master race

>>2809607
Greater sharpness in every single test is how it is better. I'm certain your landscape composition will look fantastic at f/2.0, as will those portraits at 35mm equiv.

But it all doesn't matter, because Fuji magic feel experience defending us against those phantom sonyggers.

>>2809610
>greater sharpness in every single test

Certainly you have a link to back up this claim.

>>2809610
Word. Not to say that Sony isn't shit too though.

>>2809611
Yes, www.google.com. I'm not going to be doing shit for you, mate, just so you can dismiss it out of hand to tell me about how its lack of sharpness actually looks better. Not exactly the fucking peer-review process here.

>>2809613
>translation: i got nothing

File: SONYSHIT.jpg (551KB, 2162x1189px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 2162x1189px

I believe Imaging Resource used the 16-50mm sony lens in this test, but look how fucking disgusting the Sony is at 1600iso. What an absolute joke. And go pick any other ISO before you bitch about what i chose for demonstrative purposes.

>m-muh megapixels
>m-muh superior specs

Get fucked sonyfags

Wow, this thread got rather personal.

>>2808143
I have one and I wouldn't buy it again. My biggest gripe with it is that it doesn't really fit any niche. The glass on it isn't very good for landscape shots, while clearly trying to fit into that niche with the focal length. It is neigh unusable for photographing anything under five people and the AF makes it really bad for photographing objects that aren't paid models (my cat). Worst of all, it does not really fill any specific role and is mediocre at best for the roles it tries to compromise on.

As of now, it's basically just a decoration for my camera collection. I use the D750 as my main camera and the RX100 IV when I need something for on-the-go.

>>2809610
This is very true. I don't have any Sony MILCs, but a friend of mine recently got a A6300 with that glass. It completely blows my X100s out of the water. In hindsight, I am actually rather disappointed with Fuji for including a lens that bad with a product that expensive.

>>2809623
Bad kit lens is bad and water is wet.

Good camera to impress non-photographers, but a really bad camera for someone interested in photography. I bought its predecessor on Ebay to take pictures of my wife pretending to take pictures of things. Otherwise its a paperweight. If you are poor, but a 5300 instead.

>>2809623

it's a kit lens you spastic

>>2809542
But the xbone does have better performance on a lot of multiplats.

>>2809623
I had no idea the X100T was that bad.

File: fedora.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>>2809617

>>2809653

>still nothing

>>2809641
In what way does that look bad? Please be specific, or be dismissed.

>>2809623

You can't really compare fujifilm iso to Sony/canon iso, since it's a full stop slower and thus has a full stop's advantage in noise performance.

>>2809658
It's immediately obvious to anyone who knows a modicum about lenses, but since you are a presumptuous asshole, I'll use the same reply your assbuddies used in this thread: it doesn't have the *feel*. Dismissed.

>>2809663
>Please be specific

>>2809664
>please be

>>2809653
That is pretty funny actually. This Fujitards anal devastation just knows no bounds. He's almost as bad as the Sony shills.

>>2809667
Dude, you're stepping past funny and ridiculous into a bit obvious and sad. Dial it back a bit.

File: 1439485280584.jpg (125KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 540x720px

>>2809671
I'm sorry, anon, I just don't have enough dials on my camera to do that.

>>2809673
#rekt

Easily the most amusing thread we've had in a while.

File: rectalpain.png (120KB, 276x327px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 276x327px

>>2809671
>>2809673
These fucking Soniggers and Fujifags.

>>2809673
On the bright side, he can always return to his comfort zone by switching to the EVF and powering down the camera. Only dreams now.

>all of these sonyggers in this thread bragging about their superior autofocus and making fun of x100s missing focus
>this is the face of a typical a6000 user

>>2809383

>>2809641
You can always pull your camera's 1600 ISO test images from imaging resource and show us how much better it is. I'll wait.

>>2809685
Not the anon you're replying to, but I shoot with the K-1. What would be the point of that comparison?

>>2809676
Piss off, will you? Unlike Sony, Fuji makes quality cameras used by real photographers. I had several cameras up until this point, including Nikon (P900) and Canon (SX600), and my X100s is like night and day compared to them. I have been shooting it for over a year now and my 500px pulse couldn't be better. Recently I posted a pic that got all the way up to 72.4.

Suck dick.

>>2809683
>>all of these sonyggers
keep track of the poster counter and time between posts
for a slow board, it's miraculous
samefagging to the autisic max up in here

>>2809702
While you're at it, switch on the new ip marker and notice that the alleged sonyggers (nobody is even discussing fucking sony anymore) are often new posters, whereas the fuji defence squad is always one of the previous posters.

>>2809702
>paranoia to the max

File: 1.jpg (32KB, 550x404px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 550x404px

>it's another Sony vs Fujifilm thread

>>2809702
>>2809705
See how nifty this is. From his comment, you would think that this faggot >>2809710 just entered the thread, but from the IP count, we can clearly see that he has been shitposting here all along. The magic of 4chan. Pro tip: it even works on your Mac Book Pro.

>>2809700
Bro, my dick pic has a higher rating on 500px, but then again, it was shot with a Canon. I hope your new Fuji wasn't much of a downgrade after a fully-featured camera like P900.

>>2809702

>dodging the point at hand
>deny, deflect, defend!

Here, I'll find another out of focus A6000 shot. Shit's easy.

>>2807596

>>2809710
Can we for a change discuss why Samsung is better than both?

>>2809720

Nice try, Samsung dude from the feels thread. We can't make you feel better about your purchase.

>>2809684

I have to say that as a pure-bred Canoneer, the Fujifilm anons in this thread are considerably more obnoxious than the A6000 crowd.

>>2809723
Nothing to regret. At least I'm not a member of your gay thread about a hideous oversized point and shoot with occasional bursts of Meme6000.

File: canoncucks.jpg (23KB, 758x169px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 758x169px

>>2809724

That's just your natural Sony cuck envy that all Canonfags have had for like the last three years.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Zach Work
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2809719
i don't know why you quoted me post
i've skimmed half the posts here and only posted once besides my observation to ask a question
what's the a6k pic for?

>>2809731
It's the sonyggers again. They want to prove that their camera is better than the X100s, which is plain ridiculous.

>>2809724
>hurr the Fuji fanboys are worse in this thread about Fuji cameras
You shills don't even try to hide it do you?

>>2809736
too obvious

>>2809762
You don't fucking say, idiot.

>>2809766
You know the scene in Ghostbusters, where Rick Moranis's character is recently possessed, and he's running around NYC shouting at everyone, and literally everyone including a horse is just staring at him like he's crazy and stupid and on drugs? That's how this entire board looks at you, man. Not because your choice of cameras is bad, or because other cameras are better, but because of how you ACT about it. Like the retard that ruined the E-M1 for the board, that is what you have done for the a6000. It's a great camera. But nobody wants to fucking hear about it because you're such a volcano of retarded shit.

Just pick a name and a tripcode, and all the people who like rational conversation will filter you, and a couple of Sony shills will happily support you, and your experience on the board will get much much better.

P.S. when he said it's too obvious, he doesn't mean that the camera is better, he means that you're obviously trolling, because your "chocolate pie" smells way to much like the shit you just pulled out of your ass to be passable as chocolate pie.

>>2809775
tl;dr bro

>>2809775
>>Like the retard that ruined the E-M1 for the board, that is what you have done for the a6000

>Implying this wasn't his goal

>>2809766
too obvious

>>2809775
What a whiny cunt.

>>2809780
>>>Like the retard that ruined the E-M1 for the board
Didn't he upgrade to ff dslr for his fashion shoots?

File: hide_sony_threads.jpg (281KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1304x892px

havent seen this posted in a while

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:23 22:12:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1304
Image Height	892

>>2809775
Why is this Fujifag so pissed? I don't even take pictures, but he seems to have issues.

>>2809791
Yeah, he did. He's now on 645Z.

>>2809802
>I don't even take pictures
Uh oh

>>2809305
yea, you're right. If I said that, at least it would've become a fuji vs sony vs leica cuckfest.

>>2809592

>keeps referring to fuji's viewfinders as "rangefinders"
>calls someone else a "retarded motherfucker"

>>2809939
>just can't deal with his ass being ravaged

>>2809947
i don't know how my ass is being ravaged by some retard who thinks an optical vf on a fuji is a fucking rangefinder, but ok

>>2809978
Not a big deal, your mom does.

>>2809987
Wow, for a second I thought I was talking to an adult. fuck off

>>2809999
LOL, devasted sonygger is devasted. Eat shit.

>>2809939
>>2809947
>>2809978
>>2809987
>>2809999
>>2810001
Grow up. Fuji is shit and Sony is great, but there's no reason to be rude about it.

>>2810001
I don't own a fucking sony, faggot

I'm going on a trip to europe and would like a travel compact. I can get an x100t for 750 on ebay. Worth it? Alternatives?

>>2810039
Do you ever need longer focal lengths? If no, then yeah, it'll be fun. Chances are good you'll like it. Tough to get a camera that won't make you happy these days.

>>2810039

LX100 unless high ISO is a huge priority.

>>2810049
I upgraded from an rx100 to the mk3 and it's been very underwhelming. I'd like a larger viewfinder so I might try the x100t before I go on the trip
>>2810051
are they really comparable? I'm not a huge fan of the erecting lens

>>2810058
They aren't comparable in any way besides price.

>>2810063
I looked into it and I'm reading http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/02/20/panasonic-lx100-vs-fujifilm-x100t-compact-stylish-great-performance-ask/

They seem pretty close. For $600 less the lx100 does well. I just really hate having such a large zoom portruding at the 24mm focal length

>>2810058
>are they really comparable? I'm not a huge fan of the erecting lens

Sure, sort of. Both are fixed lens, both have manual controls, both are compact, they're around the same price (except the lx100 would be new).

The lens on the LX is a bit faster, and will give you 24mm which is really nice. I wouldn't use the more tele end but it could be useful. The glass is really nice too.

The X100S is better with low light (I'll speak of the S because that's what I have but the T is pretty similar) but it's very slow. The LX will always have more dof and faster focusing so you're not going to miss a shot, I miss shots all the time on the S if relying on AF.

If I were to do it again I might opt for the LX100 and would be interested in the next one (had an LX3 I loved).

>>2810039
Canon 5D m. 3.

File: Brikk-Lux-Nikon-Df-camera-14-24mm-f2.8-lens-in-24k-gold.jpg (103KB, 916x629px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 916x629px

>>2810039
You're going to Europe, not Mumbai. Get something tasteful. Pic related.

File: highres-hasselblad-hv-.jpg (48KB, 1000x519px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1000x519px

>>2810076
Wrong answer my dude.

>>2809569
See?
>>2810557

>>2809569
>1) It's not a rangefinder unless you're isi and think that everything with a distance scale is a rangefinder
It's got nothing to do with a distance scale.
It's got to do with whether or not the camera, itself, can figure out these things. It can.

Humorously, the only people that object to me pointing this out will be manual rangefinder users, because of cognitive dissonance. Anyone that's ever worked with other forms of modern rangefinders, you know, with guns, or for surveying? They'd know how stupidly narrow your definition is.

Rangefinding is a task. Any device that is capable of accomplishing that task is a rangefinder. A piece of paper with distances printed on it and held at arms length can render your own eyes one. That's a very simple rangefinder.

>>2810051
Lmao

Enjoy your shit IQ, the LX is terrible in comparison even at low ISO

>>2810560
The point is not whether your definition is accurate or not. It is. The point is, everybody knows what absolutely everybody means when they call an x100, or xpro a Rangefinder. It's obviously the shape and design, not the actual focusing mechanism. But when Leica users say that they are not actual range finders, everyone also knows exactly what THOSE people mean, too. So to disagree with those people, and say that actually they are rangefinders, shows that you are more interested in being technically correct than actually having a conversation, which is a surprise to literally no one who has ever talked to you on any subject.

>>2810564
Except it really isn't, IQ is pretty similar at lower ISO, look at any review.

>>2810581
>It's obviously the shape and design, not the actual focusing mechanism
It's more about the mode of use when using a hybrid OVF, which is very akin to using a rangefinder OVF. That's why you've singled out the X100 and Xpro in the first place.

It's not just looks. It's the way you frame shots when using the cameras OVF. It's about the space outside the framelines.

Which is the only reason most people like rangefinders so much, anyway. It's sure as shit not because of the focusing mechanism itself, too many people avoid that altogether and zone focus.

>So to disagree with those people, and say that actually they are rangefinders, shows that you are more interested in being technically correct than actually having a conversation
And this shows that you are more interested in venting the childish rage you have towards me than you are in having a conversation with me, or reconciling that it's okay for language to conflict. It is you, not I, that attempted to hammer down a definition above.

>which is a surprise to literally no one who has ever talked to you on any subject.
There's that salt.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelies when I said your white balance was off or whatever I did. :)

>>2810581
you literally said her name and summoned her response, you don't get to act like you're above her or she's picking on you with her response. You started it.
Lol this board.

>>2810560
This is a dumb definition and you know it. According to you, every camera is a rangefinder, which any reasonable individual in photigraphy would agree is false.

Rangefinder camera refers to cameras that use a mechanical rangefinder and a patch in the VF for focusing. The X series is "rangefinder styled" which even Fuji says.

Rangefinder obviously has a specific definition in photography vs in general, and not recognizing that shows you are just being pedantic for the sake of arguing.

>>2809118
I have the first a7 and the only thing that pisses me off is its loud shutter. Besides that, it's perfect. And I actually could choose between a7/r/s/II. A7II is uglier, heavier, not that much quieter and couldn't fit in my jacket pocket lel

>>2810560
>>2810588

lmao

>>2810592
>This is a dumb definition and you know it. According to you, every camera is a rangefinder, which any reasonable individual in photigraphy would agree is false.
What is "in photography?" You mean in your clerb?
But no, because most cameras do not use the same methodologies. Do DSLRs even have digital distance scales with live DOF graphs yet? I know I've never used one with that. There's certainly no parallax triangulation going on with an SLR, because there's literally no point.

>Rangefinder camera refers to cameras that use a mechanical rangefinder and a patch in the VF for focusing. The X series is "rangefinder styled" which even Fuji says.
Bandaid refers generically to all latex bandages unless it has a fancy subscript next to it.
Languages shift. That definition of a rangefinder held so long because the form factor itself was also abandoned in favor of SLRs; something that's now kinda reversing when its not necessary.
Spend time using rangefinders or around rangefinder users long enough and you quickly pick up that their allure has very, very, very little to do with that small mechanical mirror-based rangefinder up in the top plate. It's mostly about a tunnel viewfinder with framelines and some more viewfinder space outside the framelines. It's about not being surrounded by black boxes.

>Rangefinder obviously has a specific definition in photography vs in general, and not recognizing that shows you are just being pedantic for the sake of arguing.
If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation hombre.
I'm being no more or less pedantic than anyone else here. You just dislike what I'm saying.

Canon AF35Ms are rangefinders too. Where Leicas are mechanical rangefinders and Fujis are digital information and measurement based rangefinders, and the AF35M was an infrared triangulation rangefinder.

Welsh rarebit doesn't even contain rabbit, homie.

>>2810592
When you are correcting isi, languages shift.
When isi is correcting you, things have very clear definitions you retard.

File: DSC_6124.jpg (393KB, 1000x424px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1000x424px

I have an original X100 and an A6K. I strongly prefer the handling and image quality of the Fuji and only use the Sony for video. The Sony is also much larger once you put comparable glass on it. (Obviously the Rok 24 1.4 here isn't comparable glass, but the closest thing to the Fuji lens is the Zeiss 24 1.8, which costs as much as a whole X100T and is still much larger than the X100's lens.)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:02 17:50:39
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2808287
>>2808143
>poorfags
>spending over $500 on a slow point and shoot
Jesus Christ, do your fucking research, there are tonnes of older but still very much usable cameras for less with kit lenses! Get a K-50 or K-30, or a D3200, even a NEX5 is cheaper and more usable than that turd!
Fucking hell, no wonder you are poorfags, you practically shovel money on the fire, spending all that budget on low value shit!

>>2810708

>calls x100s low value shit
>tells people to buy shitty entry level cameras

wew lad

>>2810711
Yes, because all those entry level cameras are better than the x100s. Literally.

>>2810715
*better value
I meant to write this, don't know why it didn't register.

>>2810715
At what? Not at being compact, not at having an EVF, not at having physical controls you can use from the hip with the power off, not for getting Fuji's much lauded colors and processing, not for having a hybrid viewfinder, etc.

OP here. I bought the camera three days ago and you faggots are still arguing. lel

>>2810596
I don't mind the A7's shutter when compared to DSLRs, but I could see where you're coming from. The A7R is even louder without that electronic 1st curtain though.
And while I agree that the A7II doesn't look as good nor is it as small, I do like the ergonomics of it compared to the first A7. The A7II doesn't feel as cheap as the A7 either.

>>2810708
I have a K-30 you faggot, I wanted something compact and quiet as well.

Not the X100s but I have an X100t and love it, its the most fun camera I've ever used. Pretty sure X100s is 95% the same at the X100t

File: why.jpg (180KB, 1024x590px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x590px

>>2810766
You're totally right about ergonomics, second gen. is more DSLR-like, so it's not surprising at all. As for the looks, well, it's subjective and to be honest I absolutely love how clean, minimalist and angular the original a7 looks. I'm not a fan of "look, I have a fool frame sensor" orange ring, but I took care of it.

And to stay in thread, let me add that X100 is fucking hipster-trash-hideous. X-Pro on the other hand is pretty handsome, apart from that weird sloppy cut for the dials. But then again, it's crippled by APS-C. It could have been awesome with a proper sensor...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:08 04:07:40
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	590

>>2810796
Got it Monday. Love the camera. It's a great companion to my interchangeable lens cameras.

File: 1460041579748.jpg (59KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x300px

>>2810719
>compact
>taller, wider and heavier than a fucking MILC, while still lacking a grip
>EVF
>fair enough
>physical controls you can use from the hip with the power off
>apparently how fuji users usually shoot
>Fuji's much lauded colors and processing
>laughing_babby.jpeg
>not for having a hybrid viewfinder
>absolutely not a retarded gimmick

>>2811025
If only there were a name for a mental disorder that caused someone to obsess over something this hard, while also lacking any ability to understand another person's point of view...

>>2811048
There is: Fuji ownership.

>>2811025
>>2811052
I propose a new board rule! If you're going to attack someone else's choice of equipment (for some strange fucking reason) then you have to post a photo you've taken, along with it, every time!

Permaban for breaking!

>>2811066
Don't get upset now, love.

>>2811074
Why would "Hey you guys should post photos on a photography board" be a sign that someone is upset?

So people buying an Xpro or x100 are basically too cucked to buy a Leica right?

>>2811076
Because it is completely irrelevant to gearfaggotry and this is a gearfaggotry thread. Good pictures can be taken on utter shit and utter shit can be taken on good pictures, neither of which influences the fact that your camera does not have magic presets different from totally other presets or make it any less compact.

>>2811076

>on a photography board

I thought this was a Sony A6000 board...

File: Cuck.jpg (38KB, 306x476px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 306x476px

>>2811080
>too cucked to buy a Leica
What does that even mean? I thought people who bought Leicas were cucks, but cucks don't get Leicas and only buy Fuji?

Where does camera ownership even fit into getting off on seeing your wife fucked?

>>2811081
And again, how does any of that rant connect to me being upset...?

>>2811081
I think it was more suggesting that the people derailing the whole board right now don't take photos at ALL, and so if they had to post photos along with their shitty attacks, things might be a little different.