TN Args: Excellent photos, thanks for the article. Pity about the ignorant commentators.
Ignorant of what? Bad taste?
7x5 is a reasonable max sized print from what is effectively a snap machine. Throw in a bit of cropping potential and 4 to 8MP is just fine.
It's a nice bonus to be able to digitally zoom but really for those that serious, it's time to step up to a zoom p&s.
By limiting the MPs, the cameras on smartphones could address their dire dynamic range that so massively degrades image quality compared to even disposable film cameras.
So all in all, the HTC is showing the way.
RobG67: This is not a Nikonos. Not even close. I have a V1, and it's a great little camera and a useful adjunct to my D700s, but daring to compare this half-hearted attempt at an underwater camera to a Nikonos is tantamount to heresy. Wash your mouth out with silicone grease, you silly person, you.
Except in dynamic range, it's almost certainly superiour to a Nikonos. Even then, I would have expected Nikonos users to use flash and/or slide-film much of the time.
Karroly: I am afraid IS on an ultra wide lens is just a sales gimmick. This lens is equivalent to a 18-35mm FF zoom. Thus it means one can shoot handheld at about 1/20s at 11mm and about 1/40s at 22mm. With the 3-stop advantage of the IS, it means speed can drop as low as about 1/2s - 1/3s at 11mm and 1/5s at 22mm. What kind of subjects can we shoot at such a low speed apart from paintings on a museum wall, where flashes are forbidden, or a landscape under moonlight without a tripod ? Personally, I found that shooting people indoor at speed below 1/30s, thanks to the OIS, generally produces blurred people in front of a sharp background, so I avoid it. Not to mention that ultra wide angle lenses distort people faces. I am rather looking for fast lenses and cameras with good IQ at high ISO for that purpose...
abrasiveREducer beat me to it. There are plenty of interiour shooters who will welcome the IS. Even at ISO800, a natural light shot on a cloudy day in a darker room requires a tripod.
rxbot: This camera should be built, It competes with all Nex,NX and m4/3s cameras without built in viewfinders. Using on the shelf parts and body and getting away from the Xtrans sensor issue that some people don't want to deal with. Should be put on the market as cheap as possible with the 16-50 lens.If you had this camera with the 27mm pancake what aftermarket OVF would you put on the hotshoe?
The X-trans issue affects RAW not jpeg. This camera is squarely aimed at jpeg shooters; who also won't be in so much need of an EVF/OVF.
Joe Talks Photo Gear: DPR posting rumors is supremely lame. Causes me to wonder whether if it were Nikon or Canon they would have to rely on other unsubstantiated sources. Did I say lame?
I don't think so. That's how modern business operates: no conjecture at all.
At the very most we can say of your view that dpreview are repeating mere rumour, is presumption. In a business context, and dpreview is a business, it's not reasonable to make such an assumption.
ogl: No X-trans is good move.
It's part of marketing, hype, excitement. Nothing lame about it; it's business. And the rumour, for dpreview to have published this, is likely somewhat more than just a rumour. It's almost certainly a deliberate 'leak' from fuji for the purposes above. Dpreview know that and are wanting to join in to the excitement generation machine as it helps them also. I really don't believe for a second that this is a mere rumour or unsubstantiated leak. That really would be lame. Dpreview were likely told directly by a non-authoratitive source (officially unauthorised junior in the marketing or engineering dept) that was told by his bosses at Fuji what to say and pics to give.
The good thing about it from fuji's perspective is that they can also fiddle the specs or even drop the idea having got a bit of feedback on the 'leaked' models.
It's pure business.
CameraLabTester: Trying to fill up the marketing segment strata.
Same technique as the big boys, so Fuji follows the leaders.
Just good business sense. I reckon Fuji are not doing too bad a job of reconciling purist, photographer and commercial realities. It's not easy.
Come on, DxO, get your act together.
Zerg2905: I think this is an impressive lens design...but why the AF issue? WHY? Come on Sigma, this MUST be solved, I have sold my entire set of Sigma lenses for the same reason: AF was horrible! Cheers...!:)
I've been lead to understand that this is partly because the manufacturers of camera bodies often don't share the electrical connection protocols which sigma and others have to then reverse engineer, so to speak. So essentially it would be Canon being proprietal "Come one Canon, release the details...."
rallyfan: I don't like hauling lenses around and especially short focal lengths. This would be useful. The AF comments have cast serious doubt though. Maybe an update?
Its AF problem is with low-light at low contrast targets. It may well be more usable than one might think from the review. Aimed at eyes and faces it may well be just fine for the average wedding photographer.
Doing a few resizes I estimate the ISO100 image with the guy on the cliff has between 3 and 4 MP of image. Well, that's more than enough although obviously the digital zoom is a zombie feature.
The upside does seem to be DR. Looking at the reflection of the water and the silhouette I believe I'm seeing quite decent DR. To my mind it's DR that makes all the difference, all else being acceptable (CA, sharpness etc).
Seems the dpreview site is suddenly capturing ctrl-click. To power browser users this is exceedingly irritating. Ctrl-click opens a link in a new background tab for later perusal.
Please don't interfere with interface standards, dpreview.
Dpreview comments tend to be a pretty rich source of good practical advice and handson experience. It's why I read the comments more than the forums.
I'm feeling a little commentstipated today.
Might have to try some syrup of troll.
Does it address dynamic range?
markie_jan61: Sorry to see two personal attacks on G3User. Regardless of his opinion, let him express it without being disparaged by anonymous critics. --
Which ones are anonymous?
In any case, G3User makes some very strong yet unsupported statements that are insight-free. He's decreasing the S/N ratio around here. The replies may help to increase the S/N ratio in the longer term.
itsastickup: The shadow dynamic range issue is really very disturbing. I've stuck to film cameras all these years, until recently, because of DR issues.
For example, I frequently under-expose faces, in strongly backllit conditions, for the sake of atmosphere, and I need as much shadow DR as I do highlight DR as I can get (particularly for the sake of eyes). That, skin tones, + OOC JPG quality are what had me finally move away from film. I would have immediately pre-purchased the X-Pro 2, except for this review. I'm astonished that fuji have seen fit to reduce DR they are famous for.
Fuji see this as improving shadows, but I don't buy that. It's a loss of irretrievable detail and capability. Consumer vs Enthusiast/semi-pro.
In the X-Pro review, putting shadows to -2 extended the shadow DR even more but isn't shown here. The fact that the X100s has the same settings doesn't mean that we can resurrect the shadow DR capabilities of the previous cameras. If we can then I can put aside my concern.
Not according to this review. Look at the graph. It's the same as any other APS-C. And compare to the X-Pro 1 with Shadow at -2 in its review; which, as you say, is miraculous. That isn't tried here, so we don't know.
Are you talking of RAW? RAW is something I wish to avoid if at all possible. The case for RAW in these cameras, even for the X-pro 1, is not straightforward.
The shadow dynamic range issue is really very disturbing. I've stuck to film cameras all these years, until recently, because of DR issues.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review