SeeRoy: "The P7100's optical viewfinder coverage is roughly 80%."80% - Roughly.Ie A completely useless peep-hole - roughly speaking.
The finder is extremely useful. I use it at least 50% of the time when taking photos, and wouldn't have bought the product if it was absent.
Xiaomao: Hope Fujifilm will put their in releasing a brand new X11 or X12, instead. I like the desigh and idea of X10, but will buy one without orbs.
This discussion of random ball lightning in your photos can be misleading in the sense that the discussion tends to overshadow other problems with this camera.
I purchased it with delight last fall. I never experienced specular clouds. I did experience other issues, such as lack of convincing IS, hidden by a tendency to choose soaring ISO when possible; inexplicable AF misses, image quality not living up to the hype, very good but still average for the segment; sometimes not powering up when turning the lens, high contrast capability ("dynamic range") that didn't live up to the hype. Autofocus and power on speed only average for the niche=
A nice camera with a great lens, but notliving up to the price by any means. Returned it for a P7001 for $350- near half its price, with albeit a slower lens.
I am not saying the X10 is a bad camera. I am saying that I found it a very very disappointing camera.
Low Budget Dave: The people who are buying this camera don't want bokeh. They want the best point-and-shoot Nikon makes. If the picture of Mr. Yamamoto above was shot with a V1, then I bet the photographer was 20 meters away.
Do you know what Bokeh means? It is a feature of a lens, not a camera body. It describes how unfocussed areas appear, not the existence of unfocused areas.
I think it's Bunkeh. I really don't care how out of focus areas look. They have no interest to me. I want the image to appear as an image in its own right, not one that screams, hey, look at me, I am a photograph made from a camera by a photographer who is clever enough to use the focus control.
I won't use a little camera if I wanted shallow DoF. I'd use medium format.
In fact, for my uses, I don't want shallow depth of field I want deep depth of field. Background blur looks too photographic, too much like a cliche.
Deep DoF is not a drawback of V1, it is a benefit.
No- Deep DoF is neither a drawback nor a benefit, it is a simple characteristic of any small camera. To excpect a small format to deliver shallow DoF is to expect a small camera to make your coffee, and to complain when it doesn't.
lolopasstrail: Informative. We are learning that:Auto-ISO is one of the most important features of a digital camera, enough to be emphasized at least four times during the review, and to be the number 1 listed drawback of this camera. (Ignoring of course, that some photographers prefer the Nikon approach, a deliberate design diametrically opposed say to the Fuji X10's, which raises ISO quickly prior to dropping shutter speed).
Secondly, that a camera must be judged by a format it is not. For example, in film days, a typical review of say a 35mm camera would repeatedly harp that it was not in fact a 2-1/4, but only a silly 135. Wait.
A challenge with many reviews of digital cameras is that final result (outside studio shots of wine bottle labels and doll eyes) are not what is judged, so much as operational features and functions, which are then disproportionately overemphasized. More, these are selected arbitrarily as to importance, and inconsistently compared across camera reviews.
No, Richard, The V1 is a CX format and should be judged as such. There is no such format as 'mirrorless,' which is a feature description, not an image surface area format.
The advantage of a Leica M over an Olympus OM1 is small lens size, since the format is the same and camera size comparable, but the Leica M lenses are much smaller; so are the N1 lens photo family (not the video lens) tinier.
highwave, no. We do not review cameras based on the 'targeted user,' whatever that is. We base it on the camera itself. Basing things on an assumed 'targeted user' is a marketing review, not a camera review.
Informative. We are learning that:Auto-ISO is one of the most important features of a digital camera, enough to be emphasized at least four times during the review, and to be the number 1 listed drawback of this camera. (Ignoring of course, that some photographers prefer the Nikon approach, a deliberate design diametrically opposed say to the Fuji X10's, which raises ISO quickly prior to dropping shutter speed).
photo nuts: The number of comments these G1X preview images has received is amazing. For good or bad, it shows Canon marketing has done their homework just right and they clearly know how to time the release of their products. When it was first announced, the Canon 5D also received a deluge of criticisms, both good and bad... and history shows us how influential that camera has become.
Perhaps, but what will really show their homework is not anonymous chit chat on the internet, but lots of sales at $800 a pop.
andersf: Looks awesome. What I don't understand is why they decided on a 4:3 sensor? 3:2 or even 16:9 would have made more sense.
What a nice camera, I'm glad people make things like this.
Too bad it won't do real good in the market. Other than niche marketers (Fuji), mainstream buyers have a hard stop at $400.
All-in-one compacts that try to enter at $500 don't last at that price too long. Panasonic FZ-150, Nikon P7100 quickly dropped sub $400, and the S100 is starting to fall through as well.
This is certainly worth a modest price increase over the G12, but I don't think the market will sustain their wish prices. I'm calling for heavy discounting off intro price by summer.
T3: Some people are saying the pricing is too high, but in reality this is the poor-man's Leica M8 (even though it's not a true rangefinder). In that context, it's not too expensive. Plus, this is a boutique camera, not a mass-market camera.
Or, you can blame the public for the high price because everyone went ga-ga over Fuji's previous "rangefinder-styled" cameras. Any smart company is going to want to get the most money for their product. So they're going to make the most (or at least the most profit) of the photographic public's love affair with these retro-styled cameras.
I don't think the price is due to build quality.
A $200 Nikon P7000 has excellent build quality, I'm guessing even equivalent build quality. This new Fuji, though, appears to have much more expensive materials. However, the materials chosen for each suit their missions.
More expensive materials probably also translates (possibly) into more expensive finishing and assembly. This probably contributes to a higher price.
However, I'd guess that the target price of this has less to do with materials, and more to do with pure-d marketing. This is a premium price, and part of the positioning would be that it deserves a higher price, and the target audience is willing to pay it.
Note also that this is likely a niche product - $3500 and up for a 3-lens kit is not something most would pay. Thus, reduced sales volume could also justify a higher price.
Although for $3500 some might consider a used Mamiya 6 plus three lens kit...
Tlock: I use a canon 7D with 5 lenses. Love it, but I've been waiting for this camera as a compliment. I want to upgrade from Canon G12, for simple street use, travel, personal fun. But the more I look at the new X-pro regarding size, cost, and the added complication of more lenses to carry and switch, the better I think the X-100 looks to me. Simple, small, and excellent image quality. Waiting was a good thing to confirm this. Anyone else see it this way?
Hank Carter's Leica III f's (and earlier models) were smaller even than a Fuji X100, much svelter than this Big Mamou.
Makinations: "Pup-up" flash?
Nice review, I have one suggestion.
A lot of time was spent comparing it a completely different camera model, an S95. No doubt that's of interest to those who have one.
But a camera model should stand on its own right, and if being considered by some who have no experience with an S95, the running comparison just gets in the way.
What about reserving one section with such comparisons, so that those who care can zoom to it, and those who do not can jump over?
WT21: I'm in a hotel with a slowish bandwidth connection. Can't say I appreciate the missing page nav drop-down. I have to go page-by-page to get to the conclusion. Yuck.
Sorry for the aside, but after reviewing and trying to catch up, I have a couple questions:
1) When did fast lenses start being called 'bright' lenses? Wasn't 'fast' a good enough photographic word for 150 years?
2) Why is the word 'raw' so frequently capitalized in these discussions as "RAW?'
Samuel Dilworth: Is it compatible with Photoshop Elements 9? Adobe's haphazard documentation is confusing on that point.
The readme file (http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/Camera_Raw_6.6_ReadMe.pdf) says "This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Photoshop CS5, Photoshop Elements 9 and Premiere Elements 9."
It also says, "The Camera Raw 6.6 plug-in is not compatible with versions of Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS5 or versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 8 for Windows and Photoshop Elements 8 for Mac."
However, this webpage (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5315) says: "This Camera Raw 6.6 update is not compatible with versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 10." That conflicts with both the statements above.
It would be disappointing if Elements 9 users are already locked out of Camera Raw updates. Can anyone clarify the situation?
Unacceptable. PSE 9.0 purchased new less than a year ago.
I'm expected to buy an entirely new license for the entire product every year, when it's clear ACR is intended to be a moving, perpetually updating component.
This has happened too much over the years. I'm through with Photoshop.
This is no longer 2003 and they're the best game in town. Especially galling when their website states flat out that ACR 6.6 is compatible with PSE 9
djsphynx: First sentence seems to be missing something... roughly what?
Interesting that when we look at shots of the release, with a gaggle of press photographing the new Nikon 1, all the press photographers have their eyes pressed up against viewfinders.
Put a viewfinder in this thing, and I'll consider it.
This must have been an expensive launch. Nikon needs to hit a home run here, or it's out of the market.
jpr2: if only Ricoh took heed of the recent uproars created by built-in VFs of x100 and Nex7 :( !!
Agreed. The excellent Ricoh GR1 film camera managed to get an optical viewfinder in a tiny package as well as a film drive and load mechanism. A viewfinder in this one would have quickly put Ricoh at the top of the pack; now it's just a quaint product that we're all glad is still made, but would never shell out the money for ourselves.