webrunner5: Crap skin tones and crap video and it gets a 80 score??? Wow, someone at DPR REALLY likes Fuji's.
"Honestly I believe anyone who shoots only JPEG is not too concerned with image quality. Any discerning enthusiast who puts a high value on IQ and shoots RAW should be pretty happy with Fuji."
RAW snobs. Not everyone is shooting fine art.
But seriously, the OOC fuji jpegs were arguably as good as any RAW processing, using almost all the available DR with the right settings. Unlike other systems, the only significant advantages in shooting RAW was in changing your mind about exposure and WB or fussing over noise. The OOC jpegs were a great way to avoid a lot of admin.
That's no longer true.
In the meantime, RAW shooters do have a tendency to be shooting low ISO pics, whereas the Fujis were fantastic for high ISO people pics where ultimate image quality isn't such an issue.
In any case, this is about differing needs not ultimate image quality.
BarnET: Where is yabokie the x-trans thrasher.I expected the usual "x-trans is an stupis cost saving piece crap " comment.Maybe he finally found his she-troll.
Time for an evening troll, I see.
All very amusing. Two trolls fighting over another troll, who's lost interest due to a she-troll.
You're all very naughty, and go straight to your caves without supper.
No RGB histogram is just inexcusable. And with the red channel prone to clipping, also.
Along with all the other oddities and omissions, reviewers are right to call these cameras 'quirky'. I like quirky in my female friends, but not in my tools.
"Fujifilm says it isn't applying any extra noise reduction or processing to skintones."
Then what are they doing? They're definately doing something as the XE-1 and XP1 don't have this issue.
The sad thing about that denial is that it indicates the unlikelihood of a change back or an option in the menus to switch the "caked-makup/airbrush" effect off.
I actually brought in to this system with the strength of the OOC jpegs as a priority (among others), and since I regularly shoot high ISO people pics, this is a problem for my upgrade path. Indeed, just getting a second body (which a Nikon does for now). And I really do need that phase AF. Bummer!
itsastickup: And plastic skin textures at high ISO?
And let's not forget the cut in shadow range.
..and has been said in these forums, -2 on the X100s/XE2 is equivalent to -1 on the predecessaors. So that's a loss of -2. I usually have my camera at -2, so this affects me directly.
It's a loss of OOC jpeg DR.
And plastic skin textures at high ISO?
groucher: "I keep one hand on the mouse or tablet stylus as much as possible, and use the other hand "
That says it all - you have to maintain an uncomfortable and awkward seated position because Adobe hasn't the nouse to write software that utilises the RH mouse control. Simple things such as just zooming in/out or setting clone point/cloning are a pain in Photo$hop. These can be done single handed in Corel - a particular advantage in cloning which needs precision.
Adobe needs a clip round the ear for producing expensive and antiquated software that can't even manage memory successfully. Try the Gimp, Corel and NX2 (the last for superior RAW processing if you're a Nikon user).
"Corel has much more functionality than any version of Photo$hop, together with superior workflow and Color Efex Pro is included as a freeby - a very powerful combination.
People have been sucked in by Photo$hop as it's supposed to be the industry standard but there's far better out there now as is well illustrated by this article."
You've evidently not had much exposure to photoshop.
thx1138: 1/4000 and f/1.2/1.4 lenses should work well. Why not 1/8000 on such an advanced model at a high price point?
"If you can afford this cam, and a 1.2 lens to attach to it, you can afford a set of ND filters."
At $80 a pop and every other lens having a different filter size, I don't think so.
pew pew: Dear Sony haters:
Just another Canon shooterJust a Photographeryabokkie
Idk if you guys are intimidated or frustrated with your own camera, but I´m sure theres more productive things to do with your time, then dissing sony in every review.
Bottom line is that diversity, innovation and competition is ultimately better for us consumers.
There's no need for that since I wrote a userscript inspired by the fellow himself:
Richard Murdey: Any expensive lens has to justify its price tag, so its fair to ask why this 35/2.8 costs $800 considering what is available on the market today across all lens mounts.
The concern is that Sony is holding FE users hostage, over-charging on lenses to offset the low price of the cameras.
Sony's argument would be that this lens is expensive as it had to be made exceptionally sharp to match the 36 MP of the a7R, and they've all the while kept it amazingly small and light, too.
My gut reading is that its a little bit of both.
Even so, at that price the complex distortion is a head-scratcher.
The vignetting is the natural cost of having such a small lens. I suppose they justify the distortion with the same reasoned trade-off, but it's not a natural cost. I don't think it should be there.
Having said that, if the camera's firmware update automatically corrects it then it's a non issue.
PascallacsaP: Looks great, as we have come to know from Fuji. For me, however, AF speed is going to be the decisive factor.
"Yabokkie's posts are about as useful as tits on a boar. "
Quite useful, then. :)
Perhaps you mean the particular case of a male domesticated pig.
There is a highly specialised weapon for this kind of thing:
Definately works for firefox, not sure about chrome.
itsastickup: For portraits it's not long enough and the aperture isn't big enough.
And it's not long enough for macro either, other than document copying.
I really don't get this lens.
"Enough of this nonsense about 50mm being "too short" for portraits. Someone making this claim is NOT a true portrait shooter!!! "
You're talking about environmental portraits, for which 50mm equiv is the sensible starting point, and then wider from there. And for which there are already such lenses.
But this is a longer lens than that and yet not close enough to 85mm equiv for head-n-torso shots without too much face distortion.
So as a 'portrait lens' rather than a more general purpose lens, it falls short.
For portraits it's not long enough and the aperture isn't big enough.
A decent ND filter that cancels sensor reflection is expensive. And with all those different filter sizes, very expensive.
I really can't imagine that the lack of weather sealing significantly impacted their sales. But it will have considerably added to the price of this camera.
Considering the XE-2's lamentable plasticised jpeg skin textures at high ISO, the moving of the Q button (from somewhere reasonable to a ridiculous location, with tragic loss of the view button), the sharp cut in the shadows, the over-tightening of the EV dial; it's arguable that Fuji have been listening too much to their customers and reviewers.
Let's hope that the shadow setting now goes down to -3 (or more) to compensate for that shadow cut.
It remains to be seen whether this model clips the shadows (and reduces shadow depth) like the XE-2, and disastrously plasticised jpeg skin texture at high ISO. We need that DR, fuji. Stop messing about.
I passed over the XE2 for that reason, depsite the highly desirable phase AF.
..and apparently the cut on the shadows was due to a comment in the dpreview review. Thanks for nothing, dpreview.
Doesn't seem so high to me. Isn't it £400 cheaper than when the XP1 was released?
It's quite encouraging, on the price front, that it's so much less. It suggests to me that the blow-outs on the XE-1 and XP1 were not desperation but a genuine cost of manufacturing reduction.
The Gimp and Corel are in no way real competition to Photoshop, simply on feature sets.
I've used both Gimp and Photoshop. The Gimp isn't even near Photoshop from 2005, let alone the latest.
Photoshop may have its flaws but it's nuts to suggest Gimp as an alternative.