4 ms·

If you want a camera like the Fujifilm X100F under 1000 USD, get a used X100, X100S, or X100T. They are very good cameras.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
I'll second this, although I'd recommend staying away from the X100. It had some issues with autofocus that were mostly corrected with firmware updates, but weren't completely addressed. The X100S and T are both excellent cameras. Shooting with a prime (fixed focal length) lens will give you significantly better image quality at a lighter weight than using a zoom lens. I don't think you need much more than 16MP. That resolution is good enough for publishing in a top tier national magazine[1], and it'll be good enough for your computer screen. [1] To head off the naysayers on this: I had a picture of mine published in Travel and Leisure magazine in September 2014 that I shot with my X100S. http://www.aaronbrethorstphotography.com/2015/10/31/on-approach http://www.aaronbrethorstphotography.com/2015/10/31/on-appro...
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  In support of the claim that 16MP is enough, it is also instructive to recall that a full magazine page at 300 DPI is ~8.4 megapixels. So 16MP is technically just about good enough for a double-page spread.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    With a Bayer sensor [1], multiple pixels are interpolated to determine the color and luminance of each output pixel...a typical digital camera can not capture two adjacent red pixels. On the other hand, print inks will tend to bleed and so it's hard to pixel peep a magazine image. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
  - emn13 10y ago
    That's around 300 PPI, which is way more than enough; most photographs don't consist of super-high-contrast aliased lines, and thus will typically look OK printed at considerably less than 300PPI; depending on context you could go as low as 100-200PPI. 300DPI is a bare minimum more because then the printer dots are bare visible; and of course you need many printer dots per pixel to be able to create smooth-looking gradients. It doesn't say as much about pixels. Of course, if you're printing sub-8MP images on a full page, then you can count on all those pixels being important, so any pixel-level defects that are usually hidden by their tiny size will become visible (hot pixels, noise, that kind of thing)

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

I'll second this, although I'd recommend staying away from the X100. It had some issues with autofocus that were mostly corrected with firmware updates, but weren't completely addressed. The X100S and T are both excellent cameras. Shooting with a prime (fixed focal length) lens will give you significantly better image quality at a lighter weight than using a zoom lens. I don't think you need much more than 16MP. That resolution is good enough for publishing in a top tier national magazine[1], and it'll be good enough for your computer screen. [1] To head off the naysayers on this: I had a picture of mine published in Travel and Leisure magazine in September 2014 that I shot with my X100S. http://www.aaronbrethorstphotography.com/2015/10/31/on-approach http://www.aaronbrethorstphotography.com/2015/10/31/on-appro...

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
In support of the claim that 16MP is enough, it is also instructive to recall that a full magazine page at 300 DPI is ~8.4 megapixels. So 16MP is technically just about good enough for a double-page spread.
- brudgers 10y ago
  With a Bayer sensor [1], multiple pixels are interpolated to determine the color and luminance of each output pixel...a typical digital camera can not capture two adjacent red pixels. On the other hand, print inks will tend to bleed and so it's hard to pixel peep a magazine image. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
- emn13 10y ago
  That's around 300 PPI, which is way more than enough; most photographs don't consist of super-high-contrast aliased lines, and thus will typically look OK printed at considerably less than 300PPI; depending on context you could go as low as 100-200PPI. 300DPI is a bare minimum more because then the printer dots are bare visible; and of course you need many printer dots per pixel to be able to create smooth-looking gradients. It doesn't say as much about pixels. Of course, if you're printing sub-8MP images on a full page, then you can count on all those pixels being important, so any pixel-level defects that are usually hidden by their tiny size will become visible (hot pixels, noise, that kind of thing)