"All around lens" vs Fuji X100

[Tiller]

So the first "good" lens I bought for my 60d was an efs 15-85. I bought it for all around, day to day pictures. However, what I'm finding is that I don't use my lens because I don't feel like dragging my big dslr everywhere.


So what I'm thinking of doing is selling my 15-85 and getting a used X100. I'd only be paying about $50-$100 more. My thought process is that I would much rather bring along a camera that size, that I can just throw in my bookbag.


Thoughts?

 

[The_Traveler]

OK

 

[Derrel]

The X100s is the one that can actually focus properly, both in AF< and manually....if you mean the X100s, then by all means, YES. If you mean the X100, then...no. From every review I have seen, the original X100 was okay, but also "highly flawed" and "quirky" or simply just "irritating".

 

[Tiller]

OK

Insightful

The X100s is the one that can actually focus properly, both in AF< and manually....if you mean the X100s, then by all means, YES. If you mean the X100, then...no. From every review I have seen, the original X100 was okay, but also "highly flawed" and "quirky" or simply just "irritating".

I saw that it was much better, but $600 better?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, apparently the X100 was danged near worthless at focusing when it was needed...slow, balky, worthless focusing. OTOH, the X100s is garnering virtually universal RAVE reviews for build, design, and focusing. And also rave reviews for image quality. According to every review I have read (ficve), the X100s has a simply astoundingly good focusing system--it can focus in exceedingly dim light, FAST. The X100 OTOH, had trouible focusing on regular everyday situations, and would simply MISS shots.

The reviews RAVE about the X100s. Fuji X100S Review

Rockwwell loves it, and he has access to and acutally OWNS the finest modern cameras....Leica, Nikon, Canon, and SONY...and he LOVES the X100s. David Hobby of Strobist? LOVES the X100s. Zack Arias? LOVES it. The Luminous Landscape's crew? LOVES the X100s. The majority of the hard-core mirrorless crowd loves the X100s.

On the other hand, the X100 was a missfire. They are now being sold off like crazy. I know six hundred bucks is a lot of dough...but it's the price premium for a camera that blows shots, and one that NAILS shots, and can do it even in low,low light. According to some, this camera is the new Leica replacement, or the 'modern digital Leica' substitute. It's kind of like the price premium between say a 35mm f/2 Nikkor, and the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor...roughly a thousand dollars difference in price.

 

[Light Guru]

OK

Insightful

The X100s is the one that can actually focus properly, both in AF< and manually....if you mean the X100s, then by all means, YES. If you mean the X100, then...no. From every review I have seen, the original X100 was okay, but also "highly flawed" and "quirky" or simply just "irritating".

I saw that it was much better, but $600 better?

Most definitely worth the extra $600



Besides by the time they are not on back order you will have the extra $600 needed.

I've got a x100s reserved for a week long trip next month from borrowlenses.com and I'm supper excited to get my hands on it. Once I saw the the split screen focusing option I knew the x100 just would not do.

 

[Light Guru]

And another video review.

 

[manny212]

The X100s is the one that can actually focus properly, both in AF< and manually....if you mean the X100s, then by all means, YES. If you mean the X100, then...no. From every review I have seen, the original X100 was okay, but also "highly flawed" and "quirky" or simply just "irritating".

+1

I rented one a month ago for a two week europe trip, x100s just plain rocks!!! On a few occasions I found the lens a bit limiting but by no means a deal breaker .

I would say it is well worth the 600 more .