I've just ordered a new Fuji x100t instead of buying used

>>2870427
>digital leica

you did fine, get an m6 if you want a leica

the fuji is a great camera

>>2870427
Why would you buy either of those meme cameras? You could've gotten a much more capable camera with your autism bucks. You just dropped over 1k on a shit camera.

>>2870433
accordez l'exemples, please

What would be a more capable camera? Dusty Ricoh GR or maybe some big-ass SLR?

>>2870435
You bought a glorified point and shoot camera. How much did you spend and I'll show you what you could have gotten.

>>2870439
exactly 1000€, show me something better

>>2870441
You can buy a sony a7 for $800 used on Amazon. You could have bought an a6000 brand new for $700. Could have bought a used 5d mark ii. Could have bought even a Pentax k50 for like $400. All these cameras would have been better than that pile of shit you bought. You literally paid a premium so that you have a point and shoot that looks like a rangefinder.

>>2870427
You could have bought the x100t for like €800... anyway great purchase.

>>2870448
Nikon Coolpix A.

This is literally the same exact camera. The only difference being the fuji looks like a rangefinder and has slightly more accesible controls.

>>2870446
>you could have gotten other memes with worse lenses

>>2870454
Could have bought a Nikon Coolpix A, which is exactly the same camera. The fuji just has a different layout. People who are buying the fuji are buying it for hipster reasons, it's not a better camera for the money.

>>2870448
>€800

Not in my country, m8 :(

>>2870452
>>2870455
>exactly the same camera
worse lens, no finder, but still, exactly the same

>>2870462
Are you illiterate?

>slightly more accesible controls

Lens is the same. Akshully, the Nikon has better focusing if you want to be a dick about it. Could have bought a much better camera but instead you paid for buyer's remorse.

>over 1k for 16 mp, a dslr crop sensor in a fixed 35mm lens body

Literally a d3300 with a kit lens would have been better. Or a d3200.

>>2870466
>Lens is the same

>Nikon has 18,5mm lens
>Fuji has 23mm lens

But hey, it's the same!
Fuck off with your bullshit, you idiot.

Technically you couldve bought a better camera, but the images that come out of the X100T are like fucken magic.

>>2870481
You mean JPG SOOC? Actually I'm using Iridient so I ain't worried about raws

File: IMG_20160626_130227.jpg (520KB, 1429x952px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1429x952px

Congratulations. The x100T is great camera. Don't let people who never used one tell you it is a shitty camera. If the 35mm focal length suits you well, then the fuji is pretty much anything you'll need. Perfect for traveling.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100T
Camera Software	VSCO Android Version
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:07 20:57:20
Exposure Time	1/1300 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Brightness	10.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Comment	Processed with VSCO with b5 preset
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1429
Image Height	952
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Program AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2870482
JPG and RAW.

The X100T nails white balance and exposure every single time. I'm consistently amazed at just how little ACR/LR tweaking they need before importing into Photoshop.

>>2870427
you did the right thing.
leica is shit.

OP,

You dun gud.

Leica is a meme brand, bar the M6, there is nothing of value in their digital range.

Fuji IS the new Leica.

Enjoy your fuckwin camera.

>>2870483
It's a good camera not great. It's just a crop sensor dslr in a rangefinder body that can only use one lens. Not worth 1k unless you have stupid consumer habits. It's targeted to the type of people who like yo buy unique looking things, like buying a 50cc scooter but paying triple the price for a normal scooter because it has a 1960s look.

It's not better than anything in the 1k range and it's worst than most in the 1k range. It's on par with cameras that cost like $400. Cool looking camera though.

>>2870765
b-but muh Xtrans sensor and sharpness

>>2870427
It is a fine camera but as you just proved from your post most fujifags are leica rejects. The only reason you like the camera is because of its association with Leica. You will spend your entire photographic experience lusting after Leicas. Should have gone with the leica, realized it sucks, then gone with the fuji, realized it sucks, then gotten a real camera.

Anybody who got a fuji without ever considering a leica, feel free to prove me wrong.

>>2870456
Where are you living? A7 is going for as low as 600 euros here. That said, the M9 is just a tool like the X100T. Use what you prefer.

>>2870765
Name a similar camera for 400 bucks please.

>>2870466
are you illiterate?
stop using the words "exactly the same" you fucking retard

>>2870825
It's on par with cameras that go for $400. Deal with it.

You can buy entry dslrs for that amount except they'll have better controls and interchangeable lenses.

You paid an extra $600 to have a $400 dslr in a rangefinder body with the caveat that you can't even change lenses and you have less manual control. It's a niche product for product for people who enjoy wasting money on "unique" and "cool" looking.

>>2870827
>gets asked to back up his claims with evidence and name some actual cameras
>4 lines of circumlocution later...

>>2870829
Nice deflection. T2i, t3i, t4i, d3100, d3200, d3300, k50... The list goes on and on. All these cameras are cheaper and better with significantly better controls and interchangeable lenses.

The list expands if buying used.

You paid for a $400 dslr, but paid an extra $600 to just have it in a rangefinder body that can only use one fixed 35mm equivalent lens.

There is no running around in circles about this, it's a fact, you paid for "cool".

>>2870833
im not him you faggot i just noticed that youre arguing like a complete idiot

>>2870833
You aren't going to get anywhere near comparable IQ with these bodies unless you spend a lot on lenses, and these bodies do not have the high ISO performance of xtrans.

I had a K50, now an X100s. The K50 and the 35mm f/2.4 is actually a hell of a deal when it comes to IQ but its still not as good and the high ISO isn't either.

You're right. It is a cool camera. But it also has outstanding IQ and handles well. You are paying for a camera that definitely handles differently than any of the options you listed. If that's not important to you, then maybe the x100 series really isn't all that great. But it's not because there's no value there, it's just because you really don't get it.

You are also getting the hybrid finder, which is great. If you enjoy what it brings, you're not going to get it on any other camera than the xpro. That comes with a price.

In the long run, the price difference is negligible especially when you consider the other options still need glass and you can resell x100's for a decent amount, unlike a low end DSLR. People are still buying the original x100 on CL for more than what a new K50 goes for.

>>2870833
What if I tell you I wanted a relatively compact and lightweight camera, that has a great built quality, a great sensor and that has a fixed lens. 35mm is perfect for me. I had the xe2 with the 27mm and the 18mm before and wanted something in between. The 23mm f1.4 is fucking huge and expensive, so I sold the stuff I had and bought the x100t. I do not regret my decision. You can not compare the x100 to an entry level canon camera. I had a 400d a few years ago and I had a 50d with several lenses too. It is much more weight. It is much more size. Also, having wifi and a camera that produces usable jpegs without blowing out the highlights has completely changed my workflow. Sure it is a very specialized tool, but the camera is pretty much perfect for what it is and there are not many alternatives.

>>2870842
>What if I tell you I wanted a relatively compact and lightweight camera, that has a great built quality, a great sensor and that has a fixed lens.
Then I would tell you that spending over $1000 isn't necessary to get all of that. I would also say spending $1000 on it won't guarantee you better picture quality. If you want a particular collectible type of camera go ahead, but it's priced like that for aesthetic reasons more than because it's picture quality justifies it.

>>2870884
>it's priced like that for aesthetic reasons more than because it's picture quality justifies it

No, stop saying this, it's just obviously wrong.

The X100T has outstanding image quality, outstanding high ISO for crop, is built well, has a great lens, and a viewfinder which is only available on one other series of camera. It has a form factor rivalled by only more expensive cameras and offers controls not available on any camera you listed.

Listen, if telling people how cheap your purchase was is your main hobby, then you're right. We all know people like you, who just like a deal more than anything else. But with every other product in life, if it has something no other competition offers, its going to be a bit more expensive.

All of the cameras you listed are going to offer worse IQ even with great glass which will push them close to the same price as a T. And you still won't get the form factor, you won't get the ISO performance, you won't get the viewfinder, you won't get the JPEG engine, you won't get a sensor without an AA filter, you won't get tactile controls. Go away.

>>2870887

Just scrolling by, wanted to pop in and say that while I love my X100s, $1100 is rrrrrrrrrrrridiculously overpriced for one. I would never pay full price for a new model.

>>2870888
I wouldn't pay full price for my S either, but it's because I don't have the money to really pay $1100 for anything.

I do understand the pricing though.

>>2870887
Everything you said about IQ so far is ridiculous. The x100T has good image quality but nit good enough image quality to justify spending over $1000 on it. The IQ is comparable with cheaper available options. You're paying for portability and camera build aesthetics.

File: c6b0f889-839b-4132-aa6d-3c39551f78e6.jpg (207KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x853px

>>2870884
So which camera is it that gives me the same experience for about 400 bucks?
All you keep repeating is basically "stop liking things i don't like".
Have you even ever used an x100?

>>2871027
That picture has a ridiculous amount of noise for so much natural light coming through the window.

>>2871030
rofl

so the bottomline of this thread is that X100T is an overpriced camera, which could be replaced with bulkier, better quality DSLR at half of its price

thanks /p/, you never cease to disappoint me

>>2870455
Hipster reasons like every control you need on a physical dial, and a great viewfinder. The nerve of those pesky hipsters not caring exclusively about the sensor!

>>2871362
I'm going to ask again: Does Coolpix A have a XTrans sensor?

>>2871367
>>2871362
And yes, I know it is a sarcasm, but a sarcasm irrelevant to the question

File: sf1.jpg (618KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1000x1500px

>deep menu
>great jpegs
>solid body - very balanced
>hybrid viewfinder
>BUILT IN ND filter
>prime

idk why everyone says the alternative is a a7 when you cant even fit it in a jacket. and even still you might as well save and get the rii

>>2871359
Precisely.

>>2871370
But like this faggot said, some people have a lot of dildos they enjoy carrying around so they need a camera that will fit in their pockets or take less room in their bag so they can carry more dildos and lube for their gay sex travels.

File: Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg (876KB, 1066x1500px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1066x1500px

>>2871480
yeah you... tell them

>>2871480
>But like this faggot said, some people have a lot of dildos they enjoy carrying around so they need a camera that will fit in their pockets or take less room in their bag so they can carry more dildos and lube for their gay sex travels.

And someone has a small dick that he has to compensate with bulky DSLR with lens three times longer than his asset. Good work m8, keep it up

Ive had a x100t since its release and it produces absolutely gorgeous shots, its kinda compact, its stylish, and it deals with very well with shadows and highlights

File: 1245215246.jpg (82KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x400px

>>2870833
>>2871480
>(literal) fags arguing just buy a cheaper, bulkier dslr

>new Fuji x100t instead of buying used Leica M9
>Fuji
>Leica

at this point anyone considering a rangefinder they already own a DSLR. and if youre the type of person who has to bring a DSLR for snapshits or practically everywhere to feel validated as a photographer you probably need to fuck off

>>2871519
OP here,
actually I don't have a DSLR, and this will be my first digital camera. I shot with film SLRs, film RFs and zone focused with Rollei 35, so I know the pros and cons of having such body. Though I cannot agree on the part that using DSLR instead of cameras such as X100T or Leicas or (insert anything else mirrorless) is a validation of a serious photographer. Just because the viewfinder is covering the frame as a whole doesn't mean that compact cameras are a less useful tool. From my experience with film, I find RFs to be faster, more consistent in terms of work and just more of fun to use. Only thing that was drawing me to the M9 was focusing system, plain and simple. X100T is the closest, but it's still does not have a hazy, small patch in the middle of the OVF. Well, I thought /p/ would be less toxic. But as I mentioned, you never cease me to disappoint

>>2870433
>>2870446
Have you even used an x100t before?

>>2870427
I've never used a Leica M9 but the x100t is an awesome camera OP. Honestly most people who would hate on it have never used it.

File: 20160620-_DSC2392.jpg (2MB, 7112x4747px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7112x4747px

>>2870427
i have a x100, performance very good, im really happy with it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:20 02:10:21
Exposure Time	0.4 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2871527
yeah asking gear related questions on here (particularly camera x vs. camera y) opens a guaranteed shitstorm of garbage. Though there will typically be a few serious and helpful replies. Just gotta weed out the fanboys and assholes

>>2871575
>gotta weed out the fanboys and assholes
but the question is who is who in this thread

>>2870768
sharpness? it's not any sharper than anything else. but i have one. so i guess i'm a faggot.

the HVF is...fun...but i wouldn't use it for something i really wanted to get. the EVF shows you what you're going to get. What rational reason is there to use anything else? and then what have you got? an XT1 with a smaller viewfinder and worse 23mm lens and an ND filter and a built in flash you'll never use.

>>2872263
On a sunny day it is much easier to use the ovf. When it is dark I use the evf.

>>2870466
I have a D7000 and a Nikon FE but I'd still love an X100 to keep with me all the time

Have any of you guys used the Panasonic LX100?
It has a Leica lens and dial controls like a film camera.
I might get one actually.

>>2872342
go for Leica D-Lux 109 instead, lower native ISO and Lightroom inside, but otherwise, the same camera

>>2872347
I'll look into that, thanks!

>>2870427
You did not fuck up. The x100t is an excellent camera. If that's the style of camera you want, then fuck all those faggot sonyshills. It's great. It's quick. It's fun. It has great image quality. Fuck the haters, you do you.

>>2870452
>tfw couldn't buy while it was $300 new because not a burger.

>>2872347
What? No, you never get the Leica version of these cameras. I also think the native ISO thing isn't a true ISO difference since these cameras hardware is the same. Pana goes from 200-25600, Leica goes from 100-12500, sounds like they just shifted the numbers up one stop for the Pana.

>>2872348
No, get the Panasonic. The Leica is the same camera except for the JPEG engine.

I own an older LX camera and an X100S, kind of wish I had bought the LX100.

>>2872826
just get a gm5 and pancake lens.
the lx100 doesn't use the whole sensor area.