Do I buy .......

fudge

fudge

Suspended / Banned
Messages
142
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
An x100? I m after a take anywhere camera that ll take good low light images , without relying on flash . Have great IQ . Deliver some dof for portraits and shots of my newborn son. I was going to get the x20 but I can get an x100 secondhand for similar money. However I ve heard a lot of people moan about it or is it just the x100s is so much better, does it make it a bad camera?
 
x100 is very good, the s is just better in some areas, a sony rx100 might be a alternative
 
If you want shallow dof don't bother with the rx100. The x100 is good, AF isn't the best but your newborn won't be moving for a while ;)
 
I love my x100s to bits, but I question the wisdom of using it for portraits. That 35mm fov is too short
 
Have looked at the rx100 but I ve got quite big hands and I struggled to get a descent grip on it without hitting several buttons. I ll look into the xa1, thanks.
 
I think 35mm is okay for portraits, but not tight head shots, waist up is fine and the sensor is more than capable of crops to head shots.
 
mmmmm, think I'd question that - full length certainly. But any tighter you need to be very careful WRT any distortion.
 
X100 af is not great for fast moving kids and for portraits the 23mm (35mm) is not the best lens. The x100 is a very good camera but maybe look at an xe1?
 
twist said:
But he can still crop cant he?
So whats your recommended setup for £325 that will meet his requirements?
Click to expand...


He can - but cropping is possibly that fastest way to destroy image quality there is. EDIT To be frank if you're buying a camera with the intention of cropping would that tell you you've the wrong focal length, maybe?

TBH for that money I'd be look either an x20 or a cheaper DSLR with kit lens. Especially considering what the OP wants it for. Anyway, thats me. What would you do?.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
He can - but cropping is possibly that fastest way to destroy image quality there is.

TBH for that money I'd be look either an x20 or a cheaper DSLR with kit lens. Especially considering what the OP wants it for. Anyway, thats me. What would you do?.
Click to expand...

For the money its really difficult to beat the X100 in terms of image quality and handling, id rather crop with the x100 than try get anything decent out of the x20 in anything but well lit conditions. Even a 30% crop wont degrade image quality that much (35mm offers a lot of flexibility and as I linked before the child wont be a newborn forever, nothing wrong with cropping). Id say theres slightly more than a 3 - 3 1/2 stop difference in ISO performance which when you are indoors with a baby is massive not only in terms of ISO but also DOF.

I think he wants a smaller camera so I immediately avoided a DSLR recommendation.

Id consider the NEX5 with a 50mm at around £400, GX1 and 45mm for about £320 (but its a bit long), as mentioned the XA1 16-50 and 27mm (deal) would be decent or the X100.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
For the money its really difficult to beat the X100 in terms of image quality and handling, id rather crop with the x100 than try get anything decent out of the x20 in anything but well lit conditions. Even a 30% crop wont degrade image quality that much (35mm offers a lot of flexibility, nothing wrong with cropping). Id say theres slightly more than a 3 - 3 1/2 stop difference in ISO performance which when you are indoors with a baby is massive not only in terms of ISO but also DOF.

I think he wants a smaller camera so I immediately avoided a DSLR recommendation.

Id consider the NEX5 with a 50mm at around £400, GX1 and 45mm for about £320 (but its a bit long), as mentioned the XA1 16-50 and 27mm (deal) would be decent or the X100.
Click to expand...


I think we'll disagree how much cropping degrades image quality. Isn't the first thing you learn as a photographer 'Fill the Frame'. I'm not going to disagree re the x100's ability. I wouldn't be without mine. But for this purpose? If you continually crop by 30% then that tells you something is wrong
 
boyfalldown said:
I think we'll disagree how much cropping degrades image quality. Isn't the first thing you learn as a photographer 'Fill the Frame'. I'm not going to disagree re the x100's ability. I wouldn't be without mine. But for this purpose? If you continually crop by 30% then that tells you something is wrong
Click to expand...

Who says he'll be cropping by as much as 30%, I said that as a max crop figure. He may like full body shots or waist more and crop 30% of his image catalogue, its a funny thing that kids grow, like I showed in the link of the 6 month old a 35mm is fine. You can disagree as much as you like but a ISO 1600 x20 shot (your recommendation) is going to look far worse than a 20-30% crop with a X100.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Who says he'll be cropping by as much as 30%, I said that as a max crop figure. He may like full body shots more and crop 30% of his image catalogue, its a funny thing that kids grow, like I showed in the link of the 6 month old a 35mm is fine. You can disagree as much as you like but a ISO 1600 xe20 shot (your recommendation) is going to look far worse than a 20-30% crop with a X100.
Click to expand...


One of my recommendations ;) The 30% figure was yours. You know thats where it came. For some reason you seem to wish an argument. I don't, and I suggest you could manage that in a locked room. If you really think 35mm and cropping the way forward for newborn portraits then you go for it. FWIW the link of a 6 month old is heavily distorted. He may well of chosen to do that, but its still there
 
Last edited:
Yes, the X20 you recommended in post 15, I wasnt referring to the crop and I explained that was a max figure I came up with in that same post that would still be usable unlike a ISO1600/3200 x20 shot in low light.

I dont, were just making points for the OP to consider regarding 35mm and you may want to lock yourself in a room with your OCD distortion issues. Newborns dont stay the size of newborns forever, thats a fact. The link of the 6 month old is what a lot of people would consider fine especially considering the cost of the camera and the performance, not everyone minds distortion and shoots at 200mm like you to achieve zero distortion.

I have recommended a few decent cameras in his budget and for his requirements, what have you come up with? A compact that will offer zero shallow dof and that will be useless indoors in low light. I guess we can agree to disagree. Its good the OP is hearing the + and - of something like the x100 as our disagreement may help him out even more.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Yes, the X20 you recommended in post 15, I wasnt referring to the crop and I explained that was a max figure I came up with in that same post that would still be usable unlike a ISO1600/3200 x20 shot in low light.

I dont, were just making points for the OP to consider regarding 35mm and you may want to lock yourself in a room with your OCD distortion issues. Newborns dont stay the size of newborns forever, thats a fact. The link of the 6 month old is what a lot of people would consider fine especially considering the cost of the camera and the performance, not everyone minds distortion and shoots at 200mm like you to achieve zero distortion.

I have recommended a few decent cameras in his budget and for his requirements, what have you come up with? A compact that will offer zero shallow dof and that will be useless indoors in low light. I guess we can agree to disagree. Its good the OP is hearing the + and - of something like the x100 as our disagreement may help him out even more.
Click to expand...


As I said, you seem to wish an argument. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Neither for all your comments about "not everyone minds distortion and shoots at 200mm like you to achieve zero distortion." You evidently have just decided you'll be a patronising idiot, you've certainly just decided to make that sort of comment to make yourself look big. Sadly it fails. FWIW perhaps you could show, anywhere, a photo of mine taken at 200mm. No? well stop being a cock.

That photo is distorted, did I say I minded it? no.

BTW I also recommend he went down the DSLR route for this
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
As I said, you seem to wish an argument. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Neither for all your comments about "not everyone minds distortion and shoots at 200mm like you to achieve zero distortion." You evidently have just decided you'll be a patronising idiot, you've certainly just decided to make that sort of comment to make yourself look big. Sadly it fails. FWIW perhaps you could show, anywhere, a photo of mine taken at 200mm. No? well stop being a cock.

That photo is distorted, did I say I minded it, no.

BTW I also recommend he went down the DSLR route for this
Click to expand...

I did read what you wrote and replied accordingly. You seem to have an issue with distortion as you kept going on about it, but you dont have an issue with the shot I posted which was taken by a x100 and its a tight frame. I dont need to make myself 'look big' youre the one whos resorted to name calling so clearly youre trying to make yourself look like a tit.

Like I said, people agreeing on something doesnt always provide the best advice.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I did read what you wrote and replied accordingly. You seem to have an issue with distortion as you kept going on about it, but you dont have an issue with the shot I posted which was taken by a x100 and its a tight frame. I dont need to make myself 'look big' youre the one whos resorted to name calling so clearly youre trying to make yourself look like a tit.

Like I said, people agreeing on something doesnt always provide the best advice.
Click to expand...

Clearly you didn't. I never said I minded it and you went off into a right rant about OCD, etc etc and followed them up with a number of patronising comments.. And yes, I stand by my comments. You haven't read what I wrote. Being careful of something is not the same as minding it. For example

boyfalldown said:
But any tighter you need to be very careful WRT any distortion.
Click to expand...
 
boyfalldown said:
Clearly you didn't. I never said I minded it and you went off into a right rant about OCD, etc etc and followed them up with a number of patronising comments.. And yes, I stand by my comments. You haven't read what I wrote. Being careful of something is not the same as minding it. For example
Click to expand...

But if you dont mind it why go on about it like its a major issue with the X100 and then fail to make a decent recommendation yourself. The OCD was only in reply to you saying I should lock myself up in a room (lol).

One thing I think we can/should agree on is that the OP is going to need a larger sensor camera. FL he can decide on from info we have provided.

I have no issue with you or what you posted, were here to post our own opinions or wed all be boring as ****. No hard feelings.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
But if you dont mind it why go on about it like its a major issue with the X100 and then fail to make a decent recommendation yourself. The OCD was only in reply to you saying I should lock myself up in a room (lol).

I have no issue with you or what you posted, were here to post our own opinions or wed all be boring as ****. No hard feelings.
Click to expand...


For newborn portraits, I don't think any 35mm is the best choice...............I also said I wouldn't be without my x100s. Its a phenomenal camera. I know you don't agree but the x20 is also pretty handy and I did suggest a chap DSLR. No hard feelings either though. It would be boring if we agreed
 
boyfalldown said:
For newborn portraits, I don't think any 35mm is the best choice...............I also said I wouldn't be without my x100s. Its a phenomenal camera. I know you don't agree but the x20 is also pretty handy and I did suggest a chap DSLR. No hard feelings either though. It would be boring if we agreed
Click to expand...

Probably not the best but for whats on offer at the price its hard to not go for it and crop the odd few.

I just received my black X100s to run alongside an X-Pro 1, looking forward to using that. So I may need some advice from you regarding settings.
 
For the budget, a 40d and a nifty 50. Reducing an image area by half cuts the number of pixels by about 2/3. I won't use 'crop equivalent' FL's because they're not strictly right, but a lens wider than standard is brilliant for environmental shots, for a slight feeling of intrusion, but it's not 'flattering'*. The 50 on a crop isn't ideal, but it's heading in the right direction.

* I think it ought to be obvious that generally when we're taking pictures of people we're trying to make them look at least their best.
 
I think one thing to consider when looking at longer focal lengths is available space. Newborns dont often wander outside. If it were me and Ive been in your shoes recently I wouldnt go for 75mm+ exclusively, ideally youre also going to need a 35 and 50 to cover your bases, my most used was a 50mm on FF but it depends on what you can afford etc. as a system or single camera.
 
Last edited:
Well that was more entertaining than I had planned. Genuinely thanks for the opinions, it's always nice to get both sides. I want a camera I will carry with me more. So this is why the x20/x100 choices where appearing. I also want a view finder. Plus great IQ and the moon on a stick all for £400 ish. I know a fixed lens camera will not be the best at everything but as long as it makes a reasonable fist of most I m happy. I have a sony nex at the minute and I use it a lot with the 16 mm pancake lens but as soon as I put the 50 mm 1.8 on it becomes to big just to have in my pocket. The x100 is really as large as I d like to go. I do have one question. If i m not printing large photos does a small amount of cropping really hurt?
 
fudge said:
Well that was more entertaining than I had planned. Genuinely thanks for the opinions, it's always nice to get both sides. I want a camera I will carry with me more. So this is why the x20/x100 choices where appearing. I also want a view finder. Plus great IQ and the moon on a stick all for £400 ish. I know a fixed lens camera will not be the best at everything but as long as it makes a reasonable fist of most I m happy. I have a sony nex at the minute and I use it a lot with the 16 mm pancake lens but as soon as I put the 50 mm 1.8 on it becomes to big just to have in my pocket. The x100 is really as large as I d like to go. I do have one question. If i m not printing large photos does a small amount of cropping really hurt?
Click to expand...
A small amount of cropping is usually a lot bigger than you think.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that twist. I think it would be fine for me. Plus I don't think I d be cropping that tight anyway. Think I might go for it. It seems a good step up from a x20.
 
No problem, hope you enjoy your new camera. If you think the FL is to wide also look at the XA1 and free 27mm. Its F2.8 though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top