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.
AbrasiveReducer: The next time somebody complains it's taking so long to get a firmware update, they should remember what happened here.
In truth ver 3.01 was the firmware the Camera always should have had; so it's been a hell of a long time coming.
All of a sudden the x-pro 1 is a contender for this task. The new firmware update is a transformation. And it looks the part.
itsastickup: My main problem is backfocussing issues, particularly with backlit shots for which this camera is the ideal due to its film-like dynamic range.
Well, to answer my own complaint: it seems like the new firmware fixes this problem, mostly. A great relief.
My main problem is backfocussing issues, particularly with backlit shots for which this camera is the ideal due to its film-like dynamic range.
itsastickup: What about the option to see a live view of the background blur/depth of field? The degree of blur is an important aesthetic consideration particularly in people photos. Yet right now we must be forever chimping.
What I actually want is full time DOF-preview where I see the change while I change aperture. DOF buttons are a boor.
What about the option to see a live view of the background blur/depth of field? The degree of blur is an important aesthetic consideration particularly in people photos. Yet right now we must be forever chimping.
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul: How about 'Ken Rockwell'?
Rockwell, for all his one-sided view, does often give quite insightful comments, and ones that have saved me money.
Why would anyone read 5 star reviews any way. Or, for that matter, 1 star. On the one hand, hyperenthusiasts and on the other unrealistic grumps.
The balanced info is in the middle.
luxor2: "field of view similar to that of the human eye" , must be a lot of eye problems at Fuji. However, a great addition to their lens offerings.
The human eye sees a field of view more like an ultra-ultra wide-angle.
I don't need to be telling you this: just look.
The 'Normal' lens view is that which reflects the area of normal concious attention, not the optical view.
Nice, but seriously folks, AF is crucial. And I speak as an manual focus shooter of the last 6 years.
ironcam: It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.
The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.
yabokkie, this is an old misconception that pops up now and then. Yes, it the same amount of light but it is concentrated on to an m4/3 image circle not a 35mm image circle. There is twice the light on each photo receptor compared to a 35mm 85/1.8
If that's representative, then one has to have a refreshingly simple sense of humour to enjoy it. And have extraordinarily sensitive satire detection circuits.