CameraLabTester: When consumers (not professionals) consider SIZE as a major factor: MIRRORLESS will kick in.
Oops! It already has!
PROS: big and bulky
CONSUMERS: small, comfortable, and wise. (smart too)
That's one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read by anyone, posting on any forum, on the internet.
Maklike Tier: Wow, that 28mm f2 is TINY. The bayonetted extensions look very clever.
Fuji's X100 converters are awesome. With them attached , the "cost of IQ" isn't observed as I would have expected.
I have an X100, and am skeptical of converters, but so far, from everything I've seen and read, I haven't seen evidence of performance degradation.
Sony may have achieved the same.
Dougbm_2: Still prefer my original X100 images.
Why include the X-Pro1 and X-E1 in the "good" category?
He only said he prefers his original X100 images, as do I. I have an X-Pro1, and my main reason for preferring the X-Pro1 images have everything to do with the lens, and nothing to do with the quality of the images themselves. I like my X100 images more.
toni2: Full frame it's the best because have best image quality. That's all. It's so simple as why some photographers use fixed lens (not zoom). Best image quality. That's all. Do you want best image quality? go with full frame and fixed lens. It's simple!!Do you think that aps-c or m4/3 have good enough quality? it's ok. But it's not the best. Your thought it's not a fact, it's only an opinion.
That used to be true, but there are plenty of new zooms that are just as sharp as primes, and very well corrected for distortion.
IMO, the only reason to choose a prime over a zoom is for the larger apertures they're often capable of. Don't choose a prime because you think you'll get sharper photos, and don't buy a prime with a max aperture of f/2.8, because as I said, this negates the main advantage that primes have over zooms.
If they shortened the range, could it have lead to a smaller lens, or perhaps a similar sized lens with OIS? It seems like an odd focal range for an APS-C camera system, and Fuji doesn't have a FF film camera legacy to protect.
Personally, I don't need OIS. It's nice to have, but I think the high price is justified or a general focal length f/2.8 zoom lens if the optics are fantastic. Fuji does tend to get that right, so I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. However, lots of people are going to complain that it doesn't have OIS, and would have rather paid even more for an OIS version.
Tripodasaurus: At f2 the widest this lens will go, shows its best bokeh available. I'm sorry to say this bokeh is not particularly pleasing. The lovely girl does not pop out of the picture. F2 on an APS C chip gives the bokeh of f3 (35mm equiv.). Otherwise a beautiful camera in so many ways if your photo requirements do not include the best bokeh. Every camera has its compromises. It's too much to expect a single camera to have it all so several cameras must be the answer to cover all requirements. With the options of 28mm and 50mm (35mm equiv.) accessories available, this camera will definitely be on my shortlist for its good photo-taking experience, portability, high picture quality and Fuji's commitment to long term software development. I'll need a small full frame camera too.
What are you talking about?
I asked you whether you actually meant to say "shallow depth of field" instead of "bokeh" because from what you wrote, you were clearly conflating the meaning of two different photography terms. After that, I stated my opinion, which is that the bokeh has always been average on the X100 and X100S, so I wouldn't expect a different result coming from the X100T.
Nevermind. Please don't cry about it.
Bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus areas. It's not the "quantity" of blur, so even if a 35 mm lens isn't producing enough background blur for you, the quality of the blur may still be good.
That's all I meant by my previous comment. People mistaken the term "bokeh" to mean the amount of blur, when in fact, it only refers to the quality. For example, two different 35 mm f2 lenses, fit onto the same camera, can result in different bokeh.
By "bokeh", you mean narrow depth of field, right?
The bokeh was always average on the X100 or X100S, so I'm not surprised that the X100T remains the same.
#1 is something that I'd LOVE if I had taken it.
However, for a National Geographic photography winner, it's boring. The theme itself --- technology taking over our lives --- is boring, and since the photo can't survive on other attributes such as beauty or skill (e.g. the owl photo), I wonder why it wins?
Again, it's a good capture, and I'd love the photo if I had taken it myself. I do expect more from contest winners though. I'm not that great a photographer, and even I wouldn't have felt confident submitting that photo into a competition.
#2 looks overcooked. #8 (shot of the deer) is far better.
#3 is great, but not technically challenging or beautiful in any way. Same with the photo in Shinagawa train station.
neo_nights: It's positively amazing that we do not have pictures of: People suffering nor old people from distant villages with their faces oversharpened and over constrasty to makes their wrinkles stand out.
I think that even clichè pictures like #9 are well done and nice to look at.
"What bothers me even more is the execution. You wanna take a picture of the Elder of the village? Fine. Does it have to be with a supermacro lens, oversharpened, over contrasty to show every wrinkle he has?"Ok, he's old, we could easily see that. Don't have to overdo it!""
I like this comment so much!!
However, I do feel the opposite regarding portraits of old villagers that show every wrinkle: I really dislike photos of people in poor, distant villages getting most of the accolades in portraiture. These villages, especially those people who are old have have the MOST wrinkles, have involuntarily been acting as photoshoot models for years now. They're not a zoo, but for photographers, them and their home are basically treated like one.
Shiranai: I like the photo with the girl and the cat. Yeah its improvised and the usual "I take a photo of my kids" stuff. However, I think it's not necessarily obligatory to take a lucky shot like the ape to make a standout picture.This pictures creates a certain feeling, which the ape shot lacks of.Worst pictures for me are:1 A balloon in a desert... wooow. Could be archiveable digitally in 2 minutes.4 Althought the picture is interesting, its just a landscape. Boring.6 Generic shot of a deer with digitally added mist and vignetting.9 Just mirrored architechture... whatever.
The balloon in the desert is beautiful though. Serene.
It's simple, and doesn't require lots of photographic skill or anything, but whatever.
#4 is "just a landscape", but it is beautiful, and landscape photography that isn't beautiful is worthless. A nature or landscape photo shouldn't need a gimmick or anything unusual to make it worth looking at. Sometimes, simple is good.
The only reason I don't LOVE #4 is because that bottom river (or whatever it is) draws the eyes towards nowhere. It's a distraction. The photographer either needs to find a better spot to shoot from and exclude it, or incorporate it better by including more of it.
The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.
I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.
Yep, we definitely need more cameras to support DNG RAW.
This is the only area where Leica actually seems more forward-thinking than any other company.
nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
I read somewhere else on DPReview, where multiple people found some obvious editing mistakes that the building itself is mirrored, including someone who lives close to this building.
For me, the standouts are:
RichRMA: The monkey shot and the deer shot and the valley shots stand out. There should be a moratorium on penguin shots, we've been inundated with them for 10 years now.
The penguin shot isn't great. You just need the shooting opportunity, and a long lens. The photo posted is an inevitable photo result when you have been given both, and shoot for 15-20 minutes. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but given how crowded that scene appears to be, I view such a shot as being simple to take, and not unique if given the opportunity.
I disagree with the air show. The photo itself is excellent because of the position and angle of the planes, which is part foresight, and part luck.
Prixnobeldefoot: the scene in #11 is quite unique.
However I feel that there are too many pictures of animals nowadays. Look at the selection, there's like more photos of animals than those with actual people.
Well I feel that there are too close-up of animal shots, too many landscapes, and too many macro shots of bugs.
Unfortunately, there aren't many other types of "nature and wildlife" photography that can win.
Does "Travel" = landscape?
My definition of "travel" photography isn't necessarily street, landscape, or cultural, even if such a photo were taken while on vacation.
It's weird. If you're a great landscape photographer, you'd be able to enter a photo into either category, it seems. I'd enter a landscape photo into the category in which I felt I had the best shot at winning (i.e. whichever you feel will have the lowest number of applicants).
Old Cameras: I'm sorry but I don't see digital photography qualifying as art. I love photography and I get great pleasure from the pictures I take just from my own personal satisfaction, but a digital photo of a famous place so drastically manipulated with a computer does not rise to the level of art. If fact I like very few of the pictures I've seen on this website. With the temptation to over process all things digital you simply take for granted that you can get a picture of anything simply by asking your phone...
I stopped looking at photography as art when I realized that you can download skies (yes, download photos of skies) and incorporate them in your photos --- and people can't even tell the difference. There are entire websites that will explain how, and people do it.
All of this cheapens photography as an art. To me, there's "photography", and there's "digital art". A lot of the photos you see on 500px, and sites like it, are simply digital art.
You get some pretty shallow DOF with this thing.
I have a Fuji X100, and it's nowhere near as good in that respect (not that it's necessary in this photo).