...I can say there are two things I don’t like about this camera. The first is way can’t I put a filter directly on the lens so I can protect the front element from dirt and scratches...Second the neck strap is ridicules in its design what these technicians where thinking. Firstly you have to attach a triangle eyelet then you need to go thought the rigmarole of treading the strap thought the eyelet....
I also agree with you about the inability to stick a simple filter on most compact digital cameras but this may have to due with the delicate cams typical of lens that retracts into the body...not the case here! The eyelets are a nod to cameras from the Seventies and seem to have creeped back into more of the digital cameras, even SLRs.
Previous Cameras:
Years ago, I started off with a Fujica ST-701 which gave rise to a slew of smaller cameras with brighter viewfinders than the Spotamatic (i.e. OM-1). Until I sold that camera, I've never had a lens as sharp and natural as the 55mm F1.8 that came with it. It might have been a combination of the black velvet flocking in the mirror chamber along with the EBC multicoating. I almost made the move to digital SLR with the Nikon D3100, last year, for improved image quality but was willing to tradeoff some of excess amount for a slightly larger sensor than 1/2.3".
The x10, as Michael put it, has hit a "sweet spot" with a great effort at coupling lens quality to a much improved sensor (it is not just the size). Overall, from the shots I've seen, I love the way it renders natural and realistic looking images (Sensor coating, processing, film-like grain, BSI, EXR, etc all coming to the fold).
Lens size relative to sensor size:
One thing that I should point out is that for a given lens (X elements in Y groups at F2.0), the sensor size it critical to defining the mass/volume of the lens. The size of the lens is roughly proportional to the "(ratio of the sensor diagonal)2" , or equivalently, to 1/(ratio of crop factor)2
Lets see how this translate into the size of the "equvalent design" lens(relative to the x10):
Sensor Crop_factor Volme/Mass_ratio Result
1/2.3 (2.3/1.5)2 0.42
x10_sensor 4 (4/4)2 1
4/3_sensor 2 (4/2)2 4
APSC_sensor 1.5 (4/1.5)2 7.1
The equiavlent 7.1x factor for an APSC seems a little out of place but it might give you an idea of complexity of the lens design that Fujifilm was going after. Simarly, the Pentax Q lens would have been about 60% smaller. Ever wonder why Nikon chose !" for their new ILCs ?
Graphically this can be seen below(taken from Wikipedia Page on Sensor sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg/550px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg.png)
Last it would have neat if they resurrected the old Fujica banner for this series of retro cameras...I be all over it...
P.S. A similar review to Michaels by Peter Burian (http://www.photolife.com/blog/?p=4361)(Photo Life) and another by Shawn Low (http://asia.cnet.com/product/fujifilm-finepix-x10-45615671.htm) (some nice x10 eye-candy shots along with ISO comparisons).
P.P.S. Steve Huff has just put up his review (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/11/08/the-fuji-x10-digital-camera-review-a-look-at-the-baby-brother-of-the-x100/) and had this to say:
"When compared to cameras like the Canon G12 and other advanced P&S cameras, the X10 wins on usability, image quality and build and feel"
:P
PeAK