what's the best alternative to X100 ?

gr ii

>>3128183
This, or X70.

>>3128183
>>3128290
so the GR II is better than the I and III?

>>3128308
nevermind, I figured it out. I'm new to the GR's nomenclature. Shit is confusing as fuck.

There are the GR Digitals, then the more recent GR.

I'd honestly say the PEN F.
I have a X100F which replaced my PEN F but I loved it and it has its similarities whilst being not that much bigger.

Alternatively a Leica M.

>>3128180
Prime Fuji bait thread. There is no alternative to the X100 because nothing other than the XPro has a hybrid viewfinder.

>>3128361
First generation hybrid viewfinder was shit - nothing more than a novelty. I almost always use the EVF on my X-Pro1, unless I'm trying to conserve battery.

>>3128379
This is a bait thread. It's just a continuation of the mess over in the Fuji containment general.

I have simmilair question, is there an alternative to the GR II?

I want something very compact. And the only advantage that Sony compacts seem to have is a viewfinder, but only later models have it and those are more expensive than GR.

>>3128388
I have a X70, which I'm very happy with. A viewfinder would be nice, but after a while you get used to the screen.

>>3128403
Hows the wide angle lens? Got any snaps to share?

>>3128180
Eos M w 22mm for 300 usd on Amazon was pretty worth, but now not as cheap anymore

>>3128183
this.

and why not make this post in the gear thread?

>>3128180
gr II

>>3128180
Sony a7ii and 35mm 2.8

Dicks all over the x100 in every metric.

>>3128653
Except it doesn't. f2 v f2.8 (and no massive vignetting), better AF, better rendering, better colour (as opposed to Shit colour) , still cheaper even though a7ii is end-of-life.
What you meant to recommend was an rx1rii or a fucking Leica.
Why shill your own shitty camera? Have you no class?

>>3128687
>>>3128653
>Except it doesn't.

>f2 v f2.8

It is full frame, makes up for the difference in dof. Plus ibis too which makes up for the light.

>massive vignetting

It might vignette a little wide open, but it is also sharper wide open than the x100f is at any aperture

>better AF

The a7ii does have better AF.

>better rendering, better colour

muh shitty film effects!

Also, the a7ii doesn't have color bleeding or fuji worms.

>>3128687
>f2 vs f2.8
But it's crop vs ff, so the 2.8 ends up with less noise and more bokeh, not to mention a huge boost in resolution. Also, the fuji is pure trash wide open.

>vignette
Sony samyang 35 2.8 has 1.9 stops, fuji 23 has 2.2 stops of dropoff in the corners. And the sony sensor was tweaked for cleaner shadows over absolute dynamic range, meaning it corrects better too.

>fuji is cheaper
A7ii starts at £700 2nd hand, £150 less than the cheapest 2nd hand x100f.

>leica or rx
Lol, no, they're cameras for posers, not photographers.

>>3128702
Sup moopco
We have a Facebook chat dedicated to Sony users
U in?

>>3128705

Lel, im no britbong you dumb cuck.

>>3128705

>gets rekt so just ignores the comment abd calls him poopco

Nice comeback.

>>3128705
Lmfao, so salty

>>3128702
>a7ii doesn't have color bleeding or fuji worms
Neither does any fuji. Only massive idiots come up with such shit.

a7ii does suffer from aliasing and moire problems.

>>3128714
>denying fuji worms are a thing

So the rest of the internet is wrong? Lmfao, this is the level of delusion necessary to be satisfied with fuji.

And please, the a7ii only has issues with aliasing/moire in video without using an external recorder.
If you take video seriously, you will have an atomos and a7s.
If you don't take video seriously, you're not gonna care about the occasional bit of moire.

And do you really want to compare it to fujis video performance? Lmfao.

>>3128732
The only Fuji you have experience with is the XE1. A 6 year old camera. Its time to stop posting moop.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-07-12-25-25_crop_673x692.jpg (300KB, 673x692px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 673x692px

>>3128732
Those "fuji worms" are a result of excessive noise reduction combined with lazy attempts at sharpening, in effect a result of your own incompetence. Typically from someone using an old pirated copy of lightroom and no brain capacity to learn new things.

X-T2 destroys a7ii on video btw. And what's this that I found? Could it be that X-T2 resolves more detail than sony? Oh dear.

>>3128702
>>3128704
Does moop have an understudy or dementia?
Kinda makes ya wonder.

>>3128757
You mean the excessive NR that is baked into every RAW file?

The same RAW files that have color bleeding and loss of detail in the latest Lightroom?

File: download.jpg (11KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 224x224px

>>3128789
You really need to neck yourself. Sony does the exact same thing with NR, and LR turns their files into green and yellow cancer.
Not that you can see any of that. Ignorance sure is bliss.

>>3128789
That isn't chroma noise you stupid little shit. And stop sucking adobes cock, there's far better options available, for free even. Rawtherapee and c1 can show the fuji raw image without any added sw manipulation if that's what you want.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-07-12-24-50_crop_673x708.jpg (211KB, 673x708px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 673x708px

>>3128789
>>3128803

>>3128801
Sony has one form of noise reduction, and that's purely for removing hot pixels in exposures over 4 seconds long.

Fuji has that shit baked into every raw file, there is no using rt, c1 or even rawdigger to see the unfucked raw. This is what makes the demosaic process impossible to reverse engineer perfectly, you have two different processes fighting against each other, hence weird wormy details.

>>3128805
this isn't even a level test, Fuji has a base iso of 200, which is actually iso 100 by every other mfg's standards. Fuji lies so it can pretend to be competitive, sad.

>>3128829
You're wrong. And you think iso 100 vs 200 makes a god damn difference on modern iso-invariant sensors? You're a complete moron.

>>3128801
I'm not even that guy you were responding to or moopcock or whatever the fuck. Hell, I don't even fucking USE Sony. What is with X-trans defenders assuming everyone who dislikes that shitty color filter array is some Sony shill?
>>3128803
I'll agree that alternative software alleviates the issue, but there are currently none that eliminate the lost in detail COMPLETELY. Fuji is the only brand with this issue. Every other brand works flawlessly on any software.

It's been shown that there are absolutely no advantages to their color filter array time and time again. And yet 3 generations later Fuji have still not switched to Bayer like everyone else.

>>3128834
Except we can compare performance of their 6*6 arrays with their 4*4 "Bayers".
The former look better, especially at high ISO (for whatever reason).
The only problem with them apart from LR related issues is file size, which they've solved with lossless compression.

Of course this turned into a Fuji vs Sony shitpost session. The only point of the thread was bait.

Bogeyman shitposting (no you are the poopco) should be an instant ban. As should bait threads.

Jesus fucking christ who cares about fucking camera brands!? Just choose a camera you like and take fucking photos you pathetic losers.
Cameras don't gold you back, arguing on the Internet ad nauseum does.

>>3129086
First day?

>>3128180
I think it's clear that you should avoid a Sony. Only because Sony users spend their time looking at specs and trolling rather than going out and taking photos.

I would go for either a GR II or a X70. They are pocket-able and are real powerhouses for street photog

>>3128866
Do you mind linking me or showing me where you saw these comparisons?
Maybe I'm just bad at Googling, because I can't find any in favor of the former.
I'm honestly curious now, anon.

>>3128180
a6000 + 20mm

>>3129165
You're fucking kidding me. Try looking on the biggest digital photography forum on the internet, or bill claff's site for the numbers.

>>3128833
No, he's right.

>>3128866
>fuji look better at high iso
Yes, because they report their iso a stop differently to everyone else and apply a fuck ton of nr. That nr is MUCH better done in post on a powerful computer. It's still the sony crop sensor at the end of the day in the fuji, and fuji don't have magic engineers that can extract significantly better performance than nikon/sony/pentax, if you think they can, that just highlights what a delusional moron you are.

>>3129142
>don't use brand x, because people that use brand x, finger goats.

That's up to the user, not the product they use forcing them to do something.

>>3129165
Welcome to the fuji side of the battle, baseless claims and subjective opinion everywhere, when it comes to hard figures they will bounce off on another tangent.

>>3129375
I looked, everywhere said sony was better/the best. Surely you have some links with some hard facts?

>>3129398
Moopco shoots Sony.
Isi shoots Fuji.
Isi has better photos with better colors from a crop-sensor Fuji than Moopco has from a full frame Sony.

Fuji is for creatives. Sony is for people that think you need to see skin pores for portraits but think green skin is okay.

>>3129398
Kill yourself faggot. You're replying to a post about the difference between different Fuji sensors you semi literate cunt, not Fuji v other sensors.
Also fuck your dpr tier analysis. End results are what matters, you god forsaken talent vacuum.

>>3129404
>End results are what matters
>The quality of gear is dependent on the person using it

no senpai.

>>3129421
>No matter what the tool is, the quality of the end result is dependent on the person using the tool.

ftfy

>>3129455
Nah senpai, you can't carve a beautiful wooden sculpture with a fork.

The quality of the end result is dependent on the tool AND the user.

>>3128183
explain

>>3128290
you too pls explain

>>3129470
A fork isn't a carving tool, you mongo.

>huhu you can't take a beautiful picture with a pickaxe

If i'm broke af, is it worth buying rx100 mk1?
I mean it's 5 years old, but has tech gone that far to pay more?

>>3129641
I would get the mkii, for the BSI sensor. That said if you can find a used lx100 for the right price get that instead. The early rx100s take good shots for what they are but are very hard to control. Auto with exposure compensation is about as much control as you're going to get without menu diving. I do own one - they're awesome if size is of the essence.

>>3129641
I see Craiglist rx100 for 200 with case. Not worth more than 300 imo even new.