Fuji X10 vs. X100 camera comparison

By PR admin | Published: August 30, 2011

Dan Carr just published a comparison between the Fuji X10 and X100 cameras on his blog. Check it out quickly before it gets removed.

Update: as a reader noted, the missing fields of the X10 specs are:

  • Weight: 350 gr batt + card incl.
  • Size: 117 x 70 x 57 mm

Related posts:

  1. Fuji X10 vs. X100 vs. Canon G12 sensor comparison
  2. New firmware updates: v1.13 for Fuji X100, v1.03 for X10
  3. Fuji X100 now ships with new firmware v1.11
  4. Second Fuji X100 firmware update should be released next week
  5. Fuji X100 camera review

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • MiTaka

    If you want to fill the empty cells
    350 gr batt +card incl.
    117*70*57 mm
    ;)

  • http://www.haoyuanren.com Haoyuan Ren

    Should the focal length on the x100 be 35mm because the x10 displays a APS equivalent?

    • MJr

      true !

  • http://byazrov.com vlad

    who would consider buying that? sony nex-c3 is probably even better than x100 with the price of x10. idu.

    • nodody

      It’s the lens, stupid :)

      The X10 has a 28-112mm equivalent lens, f2-2.8.

      Which Sony lens would you propose to have a similar photographic tool? Which size would that combo have?

    • Tom

      What about Sony crappy small lens or large expensive lens.
      EVF
      and STYLE :P

  • Peter

    If they can get the Fuji colors that the x100 can produce, and noice performacne similar to a… let’s say nikon d70 (i know it’s a lot to ask)… i’m buying

  • http://i54.tinypic.com/2liapaf.jpg Frosti7

    Poor mans X100, nice!

    • kick and ouch

      600 us, still cost more than most of the p and s (f2.8 at 112mm i think is worth it)

      • MJr

        there’s more to this one than pointing and shooting :D

  • fred

    No. The focal length comparison is bunk. The 24mm of the X100 is the actual focal length, but the zoom focal lengths of the X10 are “converted” to 135 format field-of-view equivalents.

    Here’s a fair comparison:

    CameraActual focal length135 format field-of-view equivalentX10024 mm35 mm7.1 – 28.4 mm28 – 112 mm

    • fred

      That didn’t work. Let’s try again

      Camera || Actual focal length || 135 format field-of-view equivalent
      X100 || 24 mm || 35 mm
      X10 || 7.1-28.4 mm || 28-112 mm

    • Pdf Ninja

      Good catch. If the X10 is 28-112, then the X100 has a 35mm lens.

  • R!

    SENSOR SIZE PFFF!!!!BUYIN A BOX??????

  • Rat-TAt

    does anyone know if the x10 will have any in-viewfinder display? (i.e. shutter speeds, aperture)

  • http://www.fstopsandpitstops.blogspot.com/ Rino

    This camera profits of the X100 hype. Appart from very nice body design, this is a overpriced small sensor digicompact with a good lens on it. On top of it’s class, no doubt.
    But i would rather spend the money on a MFT camera with a nice lens (45mm) and get more out of my pictures. Just my thought on the subject..

    • NanDub

      And yet no MFT cam is as stylish/retro as this one (yet), and an MFT cam with same range lens (not even same aperture) is definitely going to be larger in size … I’m actually thinking about the same thing – should I get a 45 1.8 on top of my EP1+17 2.8, or get rid of the EP1+17 2.8 and buy this… The total cost would be about the same, hmmm……

  • rml

    The X10 looks like a nice package, especially considering it has a zoom range, where the X100 has a fixed focal length. Although I have one concern, and that is the 2/3″ sensor. I was hoping for a APS-C size for better low light performance, but I guess that couldn’t happen if they wanted to keep the price down.

  • bored stiff

    selling another expensive, small-sensored product on retro hype.

    this will do well with 50+ males (old enough to have an emotional attachment to this body style), soccer moms who want to feel like they’re using a ‘real camera’, and people whose highest priority is having a neat-looking camera. …but that will be enough to make it a success.

    • potax

      How come you always find somebody or the other on these sites whose sole interest seems to be in calling everybody except themselves/people like themselves complete idiots? If it is not good enough for 600 dollars, the price will drop to a level where it is more palatable for people – or fuji will lose a bunch of money. Of the people who will buy this camera , some will take very good photographs – most though will be utter crap – hopefully – they will be satisfied with their purchases. But rest assured, the camera will rarely be the prime reason why a photograph will be good or bad.

      • PhiChi

        +1!

      • http://twitter.com/#!z/zdp189/ ZDP-189

        +1

        We should stick to constructive posting.

        Admin, thanks for this list. I learned several things: no hybrid VF which was what drove me to buy the camera, but proved to be something I don’t use as much as I expected; it’s slim rather than small so it won’t be fiddly but will be more pocketable; it has the most sensible pixel pitch since the F31fd (bar the APS super compacts); it has better video 1080P; they still use that awful cable release.

    • camerageek

      In the words of Dr. Frankenfruter “They didn’t make it for YOU!!!!”

      Hahahaha I love the reading the feeble minded posts of such genetically defective peasants such as yourself! Please entertain me some more little person! DANCE FOR YOUR MASTER!!!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/aminsf/ AMshootsSF

    Ok, so how do you set aperture and shutter speed on the x10? Unfort I don’t see any external,controls for those. That sucks royally. I think the x10 is going to feel quite different than the x100. Also w/o digital overlay in VF, you’re much more limited than the x100.

    Think, I’ll stick to my x100 :)

    • MJr

      well yeah, 600 / 1200

      really, aperture isn’t thAt big of an influence on a smaller sensor, but i’m sure one can set that little dial-wheely to do the aperture.

      you also get a more unobtrusive almost pocketeable size camera. alongside an slr (that many people have who are interested in this), this seems to be a superb companion that really is quite compact in comparison, unlike the x100 ;)

      not to mention the 28-120 zoom, which is a whole lot less ‘limited’ than 35mm ;) (not to bash 35mm greatness tho). It’s the size of the sensor that makes this range possible, and it’s fujinon that managed to keep it 2.0-2.8 while hopefully maintaining their trademark quality.

      sensor is as big as could be to still makes sense as a little brother to the x100. and certainly bigger than any other ‘compact’. trust me with a sensor this size, and 120mm at F2.8, man this will do a superbokehlicious portrait. =)

      • Kozmo

        trust me with a sensor this size, and 120mm at F2.8, man this will do a superbokehlicious portrait.

        Trust me it will not.

        • Peter

          no it won’t… ok maybe at 120mm f/2.8 but not at 28mm f/2.8, which is the real focal lenght… not the calculated one for for 35mm format.

        • MJr

          except it will.

  • McPIX

    The scaling of the front and back views are not correct.
    The litte sister is a bit smaller than shown – just compare the screen size – the top view seems to be correct.

  • xyz

    Expensive P&S so far.

  • Fujifan

    Have to agree is expensive for a small sensor. With that price, think can buy a dslr d3100 or EPM1.

  • camerageek

    Obviously an interesting design. With it’s sensor size it should in theory outperform the likes of the LX5, Canon G12/S95 and it’s ilk. Though it will not do as well as a Micro Four Turds camera, it is at least a point and shoot that those who cannot understand, afford or are frustrated waiting for a X100 should accept.

    Is it an alternative to a X100? Not really. It pretty much fills the same role as the X100 IMHO – a nice little walk around camera that is used in addition to having an SLR. With it’s zoom the general consumer may find it all they need, but for the more advanced user the X100 is the better choice.

  • AMshootsSF

    The main feature that distinguishes this from the lx5, s95, ox1 is the built in (and I presume very good) OVF. If it’s anything like the rubbish on the canon G12, forget it. But they really should have gotten rid of that damn mode dial and put the traditional aperture and shutter controls like the x100. Having to go into the screen really blows.

    Basically, if the x100 didn’t exist, I’d seriously consider this camera as my walk around. BTW- the size difference between the two is negligible IMO.

  • AMshootsSF

    The main feature that distinguishes this from the lx5, s95, ox1 is the built in (and I presume very good) OVF. If it’s anything like the rubbish on the canon G12, forget it. But they really should have gotten rid of that damn mode dial and put the traditional aperture and shutter controls like the x100. Having to go into the screen really blows.

    Basically, if the x100 didn’t exist, I’d seriously consider this camera as my walk around. BTW- the size difference between the two is negligible IMO.
    ————

    Housekeeping question- whenever I post a comment I am always required to put in my name/email. Can’t the site just “remember” me? I’m using an iPad.

    Help!

  • Camaman

    SO one question?
    What will you see in the OVF when you zoom the lens in and out?
    Will the OVF display the frame about to be taken??

  • Back to top