This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

XPro2+23mmƒ/2 -> X100F

Discussion in 'X100F, X100T, X100S, X100, and X70' started by bjorke, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. bjorke

    bjorke Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    San Francisco & the surrounding planet

    -Return to Top-

    I'm probably going a bit against common sense here, but I decided to give the X100F a go and have found that it has improved against the X100T in most all aspects that were important stumbling blocks for me (all about the handling). So I've moved the 35mmƒ/2 to my XPro in place of the usual 23mm and have started using the F as my day-to-day camera.

    I reserve the right to change my mind, but compared to the XPro:

    • Lighter
    • Not quite as fast
    • Not WR
    • Smaller
    the first and last are why I'm hoping it can be a steady companion. I can always go back, but am going to give the X100F a fighting chance.

    Has anyone else migrated "against the current"? Any comments?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017 at 2:11 AM
  2. pandoraefretum

    pandoraefretum Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Bristol, UK

    -Return to Top-

    I went X100, XE1 ,XE2, XT1, X100T, XPro2 and that's the pinnacle IMO
    therefore never dreamed for an X-T2 nor X100F - obviously I would get them if money were no consideration
     
  3. Richard_R

    Richard_R Eclectic eccentric

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,234
    Likes Received:
    5,303
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia

    -Return to Top-

    Why are people so hung up about WR? It's a marketing construct not anything that is really relevant to most people most of the time they are using their cameras. I have been shooting in all weathers and all climatic conditions for close to 50 years and WR or the lack thereof has never once been an issue as to I used a camera (except meters underwater when I have used Nikonos products).
     
  4. Ken Ford

    Ken Ford Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, IL USA

    -Return to Top-

    Actually, I find WR to be very useful for shooting in weather. Back in the day I never worried about getting MF Nikkors a little wet from rain or snow, but they weren't full of electronics like lenses are today.
     
  5. Jonimages

    Jonimages Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Silverhill-AL

    -Return to Top-

    My x100f replacement story is a little different. Since buying the TCL-x100 II I have not used the 35 f2.
     
    bjorke likes this.
  6. Richard_R

    Richard_R Eclectic eccentric

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,234
    Likes Received:
    5,303
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia

    -Return to Top-

    But do you have an actual first hand experience of a camera or lens being damaged because it did not have WR or are you like most and just being swayed by the hype into believing that WR is some sort of paneca that means you can use products in situations where you would not otherwise be able to use them?
     
  7. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    The Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    I don't have any actual first hand experience of being hit by a car while crossing the street with my eyes closed, but that never quite convinced me to give it a go.

    Do you have any factual information to support your claim that WR is effectively useless? Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.

    I don't think that anyone has suggested that a non-WR camera will instantly die when taken out in a light drizzle, nor that a WR camera is guaranteed to survive a torrential downpour. But I guess that most people just feel a bit more comfortable knowing that there's a few strategically placed seals to help prevent the ingress of moisture and to back up a potential warranty claim.
     
  8. Richard_R

    Richard_R Eclectic eccentric

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,234
    Likes Received:
    5,303
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia

    -Return to Top-

    There is no standard to measure WR against. Every manufacturer who claims WR applies some secret measurement formula that may or may not be consistent across their product range. WR is purely a construct of marketing departments and no camera manufacturer has EVER produced any FACTUAL and QUANTIFIABLE data to PROVE their claims of increased weather resistance. Until that day occurs all claims should be viewed with extreme distrust and should not be relied upon from a consumers point of view. Without some meaningful data how is a consumer going to know for example whether the dirt inside their so called WR lens was because they exceeded the WR abilities of the lens or they didn't and therefore the lenses should be repaired under warranty?

    As I am not making the WR claim it is not up to me to prove its worth. It is up to the manufacturer of the product and if they cannot or will not then the claimed benefits have to be viewed with extreme skepticism.
     
  9. Ken Ford

    Ken Ford Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago, IL USA

    -Return to Top-

    This, pretty much.
     
  10. Jonimages

    Jonimages Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Silverhill-AL

    -Return to Top-

    I used a xt-1,x100s and x-t10 for beach work. This means they got sea mist on windy days, occasional splashes of salt water, and sand. They all held up. In regards to warranty claims that is at the discretion of the manufacturer as WR does not mean Water-Proof. They give themselves wiggle room since they are not claiming any kind of an actual guarantee against water damage to the camera.
     
  11. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    The Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    I am fully aware of that. But there is also no proof to the contrary.

    Like I said, absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. The fact that the effectiveness of WR is not substantiated, does not imply that it doesn't work. Hence my statement that many people likely value it for some additional peace of mind. All things being equal, I'd pick WR over non-WR.

    I'm not inclined to meet the world with "extreme distrust", but I'm certainly proportionally conservative in accepting anyone's claims at face value.

    In many countries, the burden of evidence is on the manufacturer if they choose to reject a warranty claim based on alleged improper handling on the part of the customer. I therefore personally feel more confident in making a claim stick based on the promise of weather resistance. Perhaps even more so because the exact limitations have not been disclosed.

    I only asked you to backup your own claim that WR is "hype" and "not really relevant" which IMO is equally non-factual and unquantifiable.
     
  12. Maui1

    Maui1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Atlanta

    -Return to Top-

    We seemed to have hung up on WR. Back to the original question - why with a P2 or T2 (with a 23mm lens) would anyone migrate to a 100F? I am still looking for comments here as I have a 100T (along with T2) and wondering why would one want to go to the 100F?
     
  13. bjorke

    bjorke Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    San Francisco & the surrounding planet

    -Return to Top-

    I have shot my XPro2 and XT1 in torrential downpours for hours at a time. By torrential I mean tropical torrential. Have I had other cameras (Canon) destroyed by rain? Yes.
     
  14. bjorke

    bjorke Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    San Francisco & the surrounding planet

    -Return to Top-

    Well this one from yesterday on my X100F showed up on fujifeed....

     
    Ken Ford and trainer like this.
  15. Owen Gallagher

    Owen Gallagher New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0

    -Return to Top-

    >There is no standard to measure WR against.

    Yes there is, IP or Ingress Protection Marking.

    IP Code - Wikipedia

    This has been applied to cameras.

    Usually performed by an independent laboratory, no secrets.
     
  16. jli

    jli Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    NYC

    -Return to Top-

    I think in your situation with an x100T and a XT-2, I wouldn't upgrade the x100T if I were you. In my own experience just having only an X100F, I miss not having an articulating screen the most and not having access to other focal ranges you'd get from an ILC. That said, if i had the money and enough need, I'd purchase a T20 with UWA and 56mm, but that's spending too much for something I think I would only shoot 10% of time.
    You already have the joystick, new sensor and AF speed in the T2, so why upgrade?
     
  17. Jonimages

    Jonimages Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Silverhill-AL

    -Return to Top-

    I have the x100s and x100f so can only comment about the x100s vs x100f and comparing it to the performance of an X-T2. If you want the performance of the X-T2 in the package of an x100 series camera, the x100f is the camera to get.
     

Share This Page