>>4377827
No it is not. Its awful in every way.
>but its retro and dials!
that is part of what sucks. Great camera for overgrown children however because its more toy than tool.

>>4377833
>poorfag

Captcha: htmYES

>>4377835
>u must be poor if you dont want this cheap shitty camera
10 fit on a credit card. Get some perspective. Its not expensive until five zeros.

>>4377827
>can't change the lens
meeeeh

>>4377833
I have zero interest in an X100 but you're a fucking sped.

>>4377842
it sucks

be a man and stop trying not to offend camerasexual trans folx

>>4377844
There you go again. I couldn’t give two shits about gearfags or brandfags or compact digital cameras in general but when you catastrophise and offer nothing but hyperbole you immediately make your post about the fact that you’re a dumb cunt instead of being about what could be perfectly valid points.

>>4377845
>you need to write a college essay about why the camera sucks
nah. its just gay.

i'll just wait for the x200

>>4377827
Then why have I never seen a single good photo taken with one? It a fashion accessory, with a novel picture taking functionality.

>>4377827
What do the guts look like?

>>4377863
>Wants his opinion heard and valued
>Refuses to articulate himself
You can't have your cake and eat it too

I’m sure it’s fine but you can’t buy one at MSRP so the point is somewhat moot. At the inflated prices why not just go for it and get a digital Leica? Shit, you could get a RD1.

>>4378043
Digital Leica doesn't have AF and even then you gotta buy lenses for it.

>>4377833
>Poorfag contrarian
Hahahahahahahah

>>4378055
They’re wildly different cameras I agree. But rather than wait for a camera that isn’t in stock, there are so many baller options. Ricoh GR is a better travel / pocketable camera anyway.

>>4377863
>"it's gay"
>t. nophoto

>>4378095
>>4378060
>>4378042
Look at all that cope

>>4378098
I'm none of the previous anons, and I don't use the x100 series, but you're an actually autistic retard lol. Your time is so worthless

>>4378083
if you want an optical viewfinder compact with autofocus there really isn't any other options.
Is it silly to hyper fixate on stuff? Yes. But people have always been silly.

>>4378098
Only one of those anons, and you're sperging about a nice camera. I don't shoot Fuji but I can still respect what Fuji was aiming for with that camera. Only brandfags (sony?) sperg about it then refuse to given reasons.

>>4378106
sorry it just sucks. you know it too.

-sent from my nikon

I have to give them props for consolidating two functions to a single dial that will hardly ever get changed.

It's everything I want in a camera next to my bigger one. Also without paying Leica M11 money too.
I'm on a wait list for one, but I'm sad it's become a tiktok camera so it's back ordered into oblivion.
Can't wait for my name to come up on the list so I can get it.

>>4378083
(different anon here)
grs look great. i would have gotten one but the curve on the grip mars what would have been a very sleek square design. also they took the flash away. for an edc camera, the convenience of a built-in flash is huge.
>>4378060
>calling haters poorfag
so rhetorically counterproductive, and there are so many actual points you could make instead. i think only falseflaggers make these posts

>>4378166
I don't understand why somebody would seriously call people poor for criticising the camera. I really like it, but it's very affordable for any regular ass person with a normal job. It's very sought after, but it's a consumer product at a consumer price point, not a luxury item.

File: 0afe868171b847befa1c223e1(...).jpg (25 KB, 500x500)

25 KB JPG

>>4377835
this camera is 2500$ rn
you can buy an R6ii + rf 28 2.8 for the same money and it will outperform fuji in evey category imaginable period.

>>4377827
This together with a GFX is the ultimate combo. X100VI as daily bring everywhere and GFX for serious work

>>4378189
Is it even worth going up to a medium format camera from a full frame if you don't do any big prints. It's weird Fuji has that gap between aps-c and medium format.
You can get the X-H2S, but you're still not getting a full frame camera. Why does Fuji have that hole in the lineup?

>>4378112
the irony is they are the two most changed settings
>>4378103
>optical viewfinder
pns vf does nothing
>autofocus
it is auto but rarely in focus

>>4378204
Cool, doesn't change the fact it is what it is.

>>4378204
How often are you changing ISO and shutter speed? Most people should be shooting in aperture priority with auto ISO.

>>4378223
All the fucking time, fuji coper. Cope harder with your crippled ergonomics.

>>4378209
>its an optical viewfinder thats small and bad and doesnt actually help you focus or frame
>its autofocus but its slow and noisy and doesnt hit focus most of the time
>the lens is super fucking blurry at most apertures
>the sensor is super noisy and adds its own blur even with too many megapixels
>end result is its built like a cheap contax fucked a cheap canon and dedicated itself to matching the quality of the iphone 15 pro
fuji’s best, most premium camera folx

>>4378228
Paying extra for worse results? Call it “character” and desperately ignore that the use and output of a $300 canon eos m is not just the same but better. its not about what the camera does but about the photographer they look and feel like.
>omg im like the king of hollywood and this is like a leica! DIALS! the OVF makes everything in the viewfinder look like a retro photo! *beanie flies up and spins*
>actual photographer ie: trevor wisecup: *snaps with chinon auto 3001* lmao people are so dumb looking

>>4378230
Trevor uses an M6 - the king of poser cameras lmao.

>>4378235
Any leica no matter how "real leica" t is to boomer gearfags is a better camera than this fake POS fuji shit. A digital camera pretending to be film is the peak of soullessness. Film justifies its inconvenience. The x100, zf, xtwatever bullshit is the fountain pen of cameras. Impractical garbage for weak chinned beanie wearing fucktards, designed to contribute nothing to their life except a misplaced feeling of sophistication in stark contrast to their penis shaped bong.

>>4378241
i use fuji and have sex regularly so moot point

>>4378249
No one said you didn't have sex, its just that the sex you have involves a penis going inside of you and nothing touching your penis (if you even have one).

Such is the life of posers.

>>4378251
i'm sorry you take such bad photos. Fujifilm saved my love of the hobby and yes, I'm now saving up for an M6. I want the best of all worlds. Now get a girlfriend.

>>4378254
I have a girlfriend. She's very cute for a vegan, she loves spending time outdoors, and sometimes she lets me ride on her back.

Back to the point. Trevor Wisecup is cooler than you and the only purpose a fuji serves is disappointing you so you realize the only good street photography cameras are all film leicas.

>>4378256
>nophoto

opinion immediately discarded.

>>4378241
Show us on the doll where Fuji hurt you anon

>>4378169
that's my point. it's not a serious thing to say
>>4378189
kinda real. i'd use that combo
>>4378194
>It's weird Fuji has that gap between aps-c and medium format.
i think it's cool and sensible. i have my film cameras and my digitals are apsc or compact or mf.
>>4378256
kek

>>4378266
It still seems like an odd gap in their lineup to not have a full frame camera, but then jump up to medium format from the aps-c models. I'd be quite interested in seeing them make a full frame

>>4378228
>Fuji makes camera
>Sells out immediately
>Nerd nophotos get instantly filtered and mogged by Fuji life enjoyers

Im thinking based?

>>4378268
Their medium format is more like full frame ++, it’s not a true medium format like a phase one.

>>4378256
your girlfriend sounds like my girlfriend. weird!
does she also have a long face and a hoarse voice?

>>4378278
>fujifags enjoy life instead of photography
Yeah thats why they never make art, just instagram feed filler. You’re not a real artist if you live life instead of art.

I’ve been using my x100s since it came out in 2013 and it’s still going strong. It’s been my main travel and EDC camera that whole time too. Smashed the EVF by accident and Fuji had it back to me within 10 days.

>>4378241
lol u mad

>>4377827
its bad camera, buy om5

>>4378303
So thats why artists are the way they are.

>>4378060
>ur a poorfag coz u cant afford 2k loool!!
come back when you can afford a leica (a real rangefinder)

>>4378489
lol i have an X100 and a Leica rangefinder and you're still a faggot.

>>4378241
i use a fountain pen and own a fuji

i don't wear beanies.

I use an X Pro 1 with an aftermarket Leica red dot sticker and electrical tape over the Fuji logos and I get tonnes of compliments and probably will get pussy soon

Since this is the Fuji thread right now, when do you think they'll release the XT-6?
They didn't announce it at the recent event, but the time frame from the other XT models is getting close to when you'd expect the XT-6 to be announced. They also had a sale on it recently, so most likely clearing out stock.
Don't want to drop dosh for the 5 if the 6 is right around the corner.
Would love to run the x100vi and xt as a small dual camera setup.

>>4379693
Mid 2025 is my bet. Likely we won’t get a new XH camera in that time though.

The real question is what do you think they are going to put into the XT5 that make it worth getting? Used xt4/5 will be much better value >>4379622

Why does the X100 series trigger so many spergs on here? They're a very cool concept and executed perfectly. Definitely pro prices for consumer gear but who cares. If someone offered one to me I'd happily take it.

>>4379705
They wanted it to be good but fuji made it so everything sucks

Digital is already worse than film. A fuji lens, xtrans, and fujis idiotic design (fake ovf… nested iso dial… autofocus worse than a 2005 dslr might as well be MF BUT ITS NOT A MF RANGEFINDER!) made it way, way worse than film. People wanted something to replace a film leica other than a digital leica and fuji not only failed, but their popularity with non photographers made it so they would never be motivated to fix the formula so it could appeal to photographers instead of just posers.

Now to make it worse leica also failed. The sony sensors they are using are awful and sterile as fuck, and their old good cameras definitely had a shelf life because the failure rate is absurdly high. We’re basically stuck on film because fuji cant pull their head out of their ass and hire a european designer, and leica totally lost their soul after the m8 and turned into german sony.

>>4379704
I'd honestly be happy if it's just the XT-5 with a stacked sensor, so anything extra on top of that will just be a bonus for me. But having a stacked sensor in that model would be great

>>4379705
There's plenty of reasons. Sour grapes, screaming about what the kids on the other side of the school yard do to affirm your identity as not them, popularity attracting trolls...

>>4379713
You sound pretty emotional right now anon. Are you still on a waiting list for your x100vi?

>>4379718
No, waiting for leica to make an m12 with a non-snoy sensor.

The only time i’ve waited for a camera I already paid for was when I sent my m6 in for a CLA. Xtrans looks like phone photos and fujis lenses are almost universally awful.

>>4379724
I think they look good. I'd like a Leica M camera too, but it's just way out of my budget and use as just a hobbyist. The x100vi is a fraction of the price and does more than a good enough job for what I'd like as a grab and go camera.

>>4379717
The result of sour grapes is believing the rotten apple you picked off the ground is actually delicious

Hence you think fuji is even an option because leica isn’t for you. You can’t hack it shooting film and you can’t afford the one good digeica (m11 monochrome, without the snoy 61mp influence on colors)

I hope the m12 is a FF foveon. Take my $12k.

>>4379725
If you think xtrans digital blur looks good im sorry, you just have no taste.
Normal cameras already have a hard time holding up to film. Xtrans has too much digital color mixing that makes photos dead and lifeless with a cold sheen.

>>4379727
Oh well, I disagree, but that's ok. I'd like to have a film camera too, but I honestly can't be bothered. You can get great digital options these days. Yeah it may not be 100% identical, but you can make some amazing stuff with digital. Even the cheap stuff. It's nice to have, but you don't need the cream of the crop gear to take great photos.

>>4379731
>cream of the crop
>leica m6
FFS a $300 canon dslr has better color rendition than xtrans

>>4379733
I don't know if you're taking the piss or being serious, either way I'm bored now. Just shoot what you enjoy and have at it. I can't wait to get my 100vi when it's om stock. I'll shoot with my old Canon dslr until then

>>4379736
I cant wait to witness the inevitable disappointment, cope, and sunk cost fallacy

On the bright side the leica m12 might be on preorder by the time you drag yourself out of the cave of sunk costs, or maybe you’ll buy a discounted used m11 mono and we can be b&w buddies

>>4379693
>Would love to run the x100vi and xt as a small dual camera setup.
if u dial back to the v, you can match batteries
>>4378268
in what way is it odd?

File: IMG_2148.jpg (809 KB, 1290x1093)

809 KB JPG

It’s literally an x tranny Kek

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1290
Image Height	1093

>>4379724
>fujis lenses are almost universally awful.
Now you're full of shit.

>>4377827
It is.

>>4379799
He's right. Fuji makes some of the worst glass - on X mount. If you have a fuji APSC you can safely go 100% third party, you're not missing out on anything.

Their medium format and cinema/broadcast lenses are world class but on APS-C just write them off.

>>4379811
You have no idea what you’re talking about. They make lenses with great rendering and 3D pop.

I bet you think Sony and Sigma make good lenses lol

>>4379817
Hold it with the schizo shit, gearfag. It's bad enough you're simping for a gearfag brand that markets themselves to camera nerds and posers instead of working photographers. The prices they change for low quality lenses and defective sensor designs reflect how much they respect you. They don't.

Just use viltrox and fartisans shit, it's not just the same thing, a lot of it has even more "3d pop" (optical flaws).

>>4379817
Fuji literally sells the same lenses as ttartisan with an AF motor and a 1000% markup

>>4379830
You are a fucking idiot.

>>4379901
Yeah ttartisans is better

>>4379783
It's odd to me in the sense that a crop sensor (even as good as they've become) is still a compromise to me, while a medium format is sort of "the next level" and not really necessary if you don't do any large scale prints. Full frame is ideal to me and I'd like to see what they could do if they made a full frame camera. They'd have to make a ton of lenses and shit though to go with it, so it'd be a massive undertaking for them. It just seems odd to me in that way. Full frame is the Goldy Locks size to me.
I'm still interested in seeing whatever they do with the XT-6 though.

>>4379817
I was considering getting the Sigma 18-55mm 2,8 if I got a Fuji. It's small, light weight and looks pretty good, but then I saw some comparison shots and it distorts the image like crazy. Bummed me out because I was happy I had found something so cheap.

>>4379948
The 18-55 Fuji kit lens is technically better, but honestly, when they both have optical correction they look the same. For zooms I don’t really care about 3D pop and rendering grab any kit lens/mid range zoom you can afford but make sure to get one really nice prime. The 35 1.4 is cheap and my favourite lens in the Fuji line up. There is the newer 33mm 1.4 but if you look at side by side shots to achieve its sharper look it lost some of its 3D rendering things just look flatter.

File: Fuji-16-50mm-Weight-800x450[1].jpg (34 KB, 800x450)

34 KB JPG

>>4379948
>>4379987
On the topic of zoom lenses, what's the verdict on the new kitlens the 16-50mm with internal zooming?
I'm looking for a one and done lens but am anxious about the 18-55mm not having WR

>>4379989
>>4379989
They are both really solid lenses but I actually swapped to the Tamron 17-70 from the 18-55 and I’m super happy with it. But 90% of the time I have a fast prime on my camera I use zooms for very specific stuff like paid events. The zooms on APSC have a depth of field equivalent of f4 while a 1.4 prime will have a full frame depth field equivalent of F2.

>>4379993
Obviously my use case will be personal photography mainly for travel or general street, ie the trips I think about but will never make.
For paid work at events clearly even f2.8 is pushing it.

>>4379994
>>4379994
For travel I actually realllllly love the 15-45 it’s cheap and super light pairs great with a prime last year I did Asia with the 23mm WR and the 15-45.

>>4379995
I have that lens but I can't get myself to love it. The powerzoom and plastic build are just too much.
If they were to repackage it into a metal build with manual zoom I would instantly buy it and never look back.

>>4379995
I actually did Colombia with just the 23mm f2 and it was fine but you do miss a bit of reach from time to time while you hardly ever make use of the f2 (90% of my photos were f5.6).

I think I just go with the 18-55mm. They go for absolute pennies and seem to be excellent travel companions. Only downside to zooms in general is a lack of sharpness which I'm used to through primes. This makes me wonder if maybe the new 16-50mm would be better but nobody seems to sell theirs so fuck it.

>>4379987
The 35 1.4 looked like a great option, but it's not weather sealed. That instantly killed it for me. I just don't want to risk it, even if it has a little more character to it.
The new version 2 of the Fuji 16-55 2,8 looks like a great option and what I'm used to from my Canon 24-70 2,8 L. I like the versatility, but F4 equivalent on the crop sensor/lens has me a bit worried. I'd like to only use prime lenses, but the versatility of a 24-70mm lens is just hard to beat. Having the main camera be that, and then the side camera be the "character" camera, that's still good enough to be a main option in case of emergency.
I need more money either way.

>>4380002
Read again, I'm used to very high sharpness because of shooting exclusively primes so switching to zoom lenses, in particular 12 year old kitlenses like the 18-55mm will mean giving up some sharpness.

Also go back to your playstation containment thread

>>4380003
u mad

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (100 KB, 1280x720)

100 KB JPG

>>4380003
New 16-55mm looks excellent. If Fuji applies the same standards they also put in their latest batch of primes (which I assume they did) you are probably looking at the best standard zoom on the market.
My biggest gripe (other than it being more expensive than my shitbox car) would be the fact it's still somewhat sizable, just a lot smaller than the OG version.

Still I'm 100% certain that when it drops it will be the best crop zoom lens on the entire market going toe to toe with fool frame ones.

>>4380005
What?

>>4380007
It looks like the perfect option, I just wish it could open more than f4 equivalent, but I can have the off camera for that.
The size and weight will be significantly less that my old 5d.

>>4380007
The new Canon 24-70 is actually awful pretty sure Fujis will smash it.

>>4380009
I use the Simga 18-35 1.8 with a fringer adapter to get that full frame look. It’s perfect for work but sucks for travel.

>>4380010
>>4380005
>>4380002
Fuck off retard

File: xf16-55mmf28-ii_product-o(...).jpg (94 KB, 2000x1333)

94 KB JPG

>>4380009
Such is life on crop, maybe one day they will come up with a constant f2 zoom for Fooj but until then you just have to accept f2.8 is the best you can get on a zoom.
For me the compactness of crop zooms which absolutely beat having more background seperation. Just look at the size of a ""standard"" zoom on fool frame and imagine taking it with you on a vacation, lol.
>>4380010
Man it's been so long since you started this persona and you're still going.
XF18-55mm was released in 2012.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge 2022 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:07 12:46:34
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333

File: dscf0197[1].jpg (1.1 MB, 1600x1067)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4380016
You realize you're posting in a thread for crop users who are fully aware of the limitation and advantages of a crop sensor?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100V
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2021:08:22 16:54:38
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Brightness	7.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4380029
There are advantages: Cost, weight, size, additional lens selection. I'm sure you don't even own a camera.

>>4380033
Don't bother anon, he's just wasting his life taking the piss about nothing.

You fucking retards couldn't even stay on topic. X100vi thread and you're all talking about Sony and zoom lenses. Ffs....

>>4380037
There's only one dweeb here, the rest of us are talking about Fuji in general.
What more is there to say about the x100vi? The people who want it are just waiting until their name comes up on a list right now.

>>4380037
Well, an a7c with a 40mm f2.5 does mog the x100vi extremely hard. It's not like either fits in a pocket. It's just one has a masculine aesthetic that's rough, sharp, and futuristic and the other has a feminine aesthetic that's non-serious retro twee.

The protrusion difference starts to matter if you have a purse. The flatter x100vi can fit in a purse. An a7c+40 is a man's camera, around the neck, ready to go, because a man compromises fashion for function (work boots and carhart), and a woman compromises function for fashion (heels and bellyshirts - in fall)

>>4380086
yes, a7c + 40 f2.5 mogs x100vi
absolutely, 100%, no one disagrees, and fuji is for the gay

if you want to start a thread to talk about a7c + 40 f2.5, you totally should!
if you're going to keep bringing it up in an unrelated thread, you should at least post some photos from your a7c + 40 f2.5 while you're at it

>>4380091
>t-this is a s-safe space
no sis, this is 4chan, you made a nophoto gear thread to circlejerk over a camera you wont even own for another 6 months and got bullied instead deal w/ it

>>4380086
you sound extremely closeted

>>4380086
Imagine a world where there's a playstation general for you to post all those cat photos and discuss the superiority of your system

>>4380091
This faggot will never post a single photo just talk about and shill for snoy lol

>>4380096
>>4380095
>>4380094
>>4380091
Look at this torrent of fujislug seethe

Mad cuz you committed to putting $2k down for a fashion toy and cant take photos for another year (when it ships) kek

>>4380093
did you forget to attach your photo?

>>4380097
nah, we all know we overspent on a fashion toy with xtransux
sometimes it can be fun to talk about shitty gear, like the x100

did you forget to attach your photo?

>>4380100
>>4380098
Seething so hard cuz u made a gear thread for a shit camera and got pwned

>fujislugs cant take photos until their x100vi ships in 2025 so they need other people to post photos in their thread for them
sad

>>4380097
I’ve been using my x100s since it came out so 10+ years without issue you’re just poor

File: Screenshot 2024-10-31 123456.png (13 KB, 784x144)

13 KB PNG

>>4380103
uh-huh
so hard right now

>>4380105
>thats why everyone has to post photos for me
tsk tsk

>>4380106
>ctrl shift i