alexvaughn: This is a very detailed review, and plenty informative if you're looking to buy this camera. I actually got the camera based on this review and the opinions in the forum. What better place to go to for camera-related stuff than DPreview?
Alamy's a good place to begin. Most on-line reviews are subjective. Agences like Alamy must maintain image quality standards to keep credibility with publshers who buy images and complete pro phojournalism stories. Cameras they approve are a good starting point.
Oh, what a continuing disappointment...! Digital camera engineering deserves better.Mirrorless rangefinder cameras with manual focus should be a done deal by now. I suppose I'm as easily seduced by novelty features and shiny new digital gizmos as most, and to be fair to all the gadget-heads who are prepared to put up with costly digital gear that looks OK on the outside but still doesn't deliver then you have to admit that Fuji's corporate profit-taking is not as mean as the rest. I mean, it's nice to see Fuji is keeping some form of stabilising eye-level viewfinder. These are time-tested. They not only allow image composition in bright daylight but help steady a camera, something not possible using cut-rate contemporary mirroless, viewfinderless digital toy still and mobile/cell phone cameras at absurd arms-length fashion.
Look, as much as I'd really like a mirorless digital that doesn't come with a Leica price tag I'll continue to use a standard DSLR and wait until Fuji -or someone else uses better sensors, with proper size - or at the very least APS-H to produce a usable camera that can perform for photojournalsm at an artisan cost below the badge price of the Germans.Otherwise there's no point moving away from a so-called 'full frame' (35mm equivalent) sensor DSLR, unless your personal wealth or your work or hobby can justify a good camera like a Leica.I accept I'm being cynical to make a point against the plethora of gushing reviews for sub-standard compromise digital gear, but most of the mirrorless cameras are not much better than toys that deliver passable back-lit and email images. These cameras are not ideal for photojournalism.
Sure, we can have debates about rare-earth scarcity and high cost sensor manufacturer profitability and difficulties finding cheap labour in fringe junge factories to make cheap cameras and optics, as well as fitting it all in a look-alike traditional film camera platform. But aren't image and print quality and the ability to crop more important? As is the camera's purpose as a tool to serve a photographer's eye, the picture you perceive in your mind the instant you decide to trip a shutter and use light to create an image with minimal patchwork PS 'processing'...?A camera is an instrument. It should measure against an ideal. All else follows, including economics. But, in three simple words this camera has:
Inadequate sensor size.
Yes... But....That's all very well. Except for the money. Better to invest in a proper 35mm style sensor 'full frame' camera now the prices have come down. A Nikon D600 body. at around $1500 is better value equipped with a standard Nikkor. even any one of the old analogue Nikkors.- Alexxxx