Uaru: I welcome adding Auto ISO 6400 to menu. This absence was inexplicable to me. However, I also find it inexplicable why it seems it still will not be possible to set minimum shutter speed - this is even more important!
FUJI, are you listening??? Please...
I'm very very surprised that minimum shutter speed wasn't a part of this firmware update, considering how easy it would have been to implement, and therefore, how easy it would have been to make many, many customers happy!
I also want a "Max shutter speed" as part of Auto-ISO, but baby steps....
If Fuji officially reduce the price of the X-Pro1 by $300, then all the predictions I made 2-3 weeks ago will be correct. :D
It'll still be too expensive though, now that the X-E1 kit costing ~$1400 USD all up. The X-Pro1 should really cost $1650 or so (yes, I'd pay $250 for an OVF), but I don't live in Fantasyland, so let's say $1800 would be considered reasonable.
wkay: what hands on? all DPR has done is be an advertising mouthpiece for Fuji. If they had their hands on it, why cant they take one lousy pic with the stinking thing?
Because it's a pre-release version, and the image processing isn't necessarily finalized.
It's a very typical agreement with the camera manufacturer. If DPR ever released photos from a pre-release camera, camera companies wouldn't trust DPR again, and they'd never be able to offer the pre-release observations that other websites can offer.
magneto shot: let it go guys.... embrace the new dawn. typewriters are long gone....
No, I could take a Galaxy S3, install Instagram, and shoot a better quality photo filled with equally synthetic flaws, and be even more "instant" due to the LCD screen.
Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
CameraLabTester: The Hong Kong holiday is a pinch of salt to the enormous humongous gazillion pictures buffet feast Wiki is gonna amass as a windfall...
Talk about disparity to the extremes...
Yet like zombies, contestants all go like lemmings over the cliff.
Wikipedia is a website that works based on donations. What sort of prize were you hoping for? I think this is pretty good, and it's not like Wikipedia can sell your photos afterwards. They're free for everyone to use. That's the deal.
And I think the prize is pretty cool.
I don't know why Sony cameras get so much credit than Samsung's. The RAW images from the Samsung would be comparable to the NEX and the best m4/3 cameras, and perhaps the JPEGs as well (if you tweak the settings).
And Samsung has lenses, even small ones.
johnsaxon: Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it. OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.
The close-focusing ability of most point and shoots (actually, all the ones that I know of) have their closest focusing range at the widest/shortest focal length.
This is also true of the zoom lenses I owned for my Nikon D300 (when I still owned it).
I don't know if you can blame Sony for this.
GPW: I have never followed any so called rules of photography and I have won a number of contests. photography is an art not squares and lines.
You ALREADY follow the rule of thirds. Whether you're conscious of this or not is another matter.
The "rule" isn't really a rule, and if it is, it's natural rather than made up. It simply quantifies a way of arranging things that, universally, appeals visually to human beings. So again, whether you knowthe rule or not does not matter. If you take photos, and the composition is good, there will be many instances where the rule of thirds is followed.
He'a a bit of an attention *****, but he truly respects his fellow athletes, and his sport. It's difficult not to like him as an athlete, and human being.
Nikon needs to man up, admit they made a mistake, and introduce a "pro level" ILC line to go along with their Nikon 1 system. Keep the Nikon 1 system for those who want a lightweight camera system with consumer-oriented features. They still need a pro-level camera to stay in the game.
I don't want to see Nikon become the next Blackberry.
Peiasdf: It is something. At least it is a much better effort than Pentax Q and offers something other system don't.
The gap that used to exist between P&S and APS-C is being fully filled with 1" P&S, Nikon 1, m4/3 and highend EVIL/mirrorless.
There is a camera for everyone. Hurray
Sad to say it, but random78 is right.
In the beginning, I was in the camp that said there was a place in the market for the Nikon 1 system because the market loves its small cameras, and if the lenses are small, then it's a win for consumers.
However...........the lenses really aren't much smaller than m4/3 offerings. Even if it is, it isn't pocketable anyway. What determines the portability of a camera isn't just the size or weight, but the shape. A thin camera with a large lens will create an object shaped more or less like the letter "T", which isn't pocketable and may require a bag, or a large case. Weight is another factor, but as long as it's not too heavy (e.g. the Fuji X100), they're all comparable in terms of portability, whether they're smaller or not, or lighter weight.
My X100 is bigger and heavier than the J1, J2, or V1, but it doesn't have a large, protruding lens, so I feel it's more portable, and I don't need a camera bag.
Make more pancake primes, Nikon!
It costs nothing to be nice, or at the very least, respectful.
But hey, this is the internet. Everyone's a pro.
jjlad: so from what I can tell everything is captured at full rez then 'cropped' since the number of pixels is reduced with each larger pixel output size. Am I reading that right?
This kind of reminds me of the digital zoom on my Fuji s100fs but it doesn't 'crop' as such and delivers full rez 11mp images even when digitally zoomed. No doubt these guys will master that soon too.
Downsampling is not the same thing as cropping down. ;)
Lupti: I´m not impressed at all. This phone needs such a large sensor to produce pictures at the level of an 150 € point and shoot? Give me a break. 38MP looks just soft and without any real detail. And even 8MP is far from impressive. Like said on level of an cheap P&S - and these come nowadays mostly with OIS and zoom. In a similar size. And regarding video, I know cheap pocket camcorders that can do better. No hard feelings, but DPreviews statement about "excellent video quality" is just false. Even their own samples prove it. DPreview is no videocamera site which is ok as they are mainly about photography but then they shouldn´t make such statements.So then finally a Gold Award for this phone - it is far from deserving this. Especially for this price.
Lupti, does the iPhone offer zoom without affecting resolution? Do you know of any phones that can take photos like a cheap P&S, and with the ability to zoom without "digital zoom", which reduces pixel count rather than downsample from a larger image?
I had the iPhone 4S, and I currently have a nice Galaxy phone. The image quality of both are good enough for most people, but the intent of this camera was to offer the ability to zoom without reducing MP.
Also, the larger sensor will mean better a greater ability to produce OOF backgrounds.
fberns: This camera and lens set is the most promising among all the mirrorless systems to me (besides MFT). It's much more a system for enthusiasts than what Sony, Samsung or Nikon does at the moment. Fujifilm is releasing the right lenses (nearly) right from the start and that'S a big plus.
Agreed. I'm glad they're not making a camera system for those who can afford a $2000+ system, and then releasing "kit lens" quality zooms. This indicates that Fuji knew the type of customer who would buy their product last year, and haven't lost that focus.
Bullsnapper: Even before I read the comments below, my first thought was, "Take helicopter, fly over herd of zebras, take shot." Yes, it's a nice photo, but I have seen FAR better images to the right in the Challenges from amateur readers. There's nothing special about this one. There's not enough in it to make it stand out from the er, herd.
costinul_ala: great image, but being apple i was expecting sheep
Sure it was. ;0
Davidgilmour: About $850 too expensive. There would be a market at half price.
Just as there is at full price.
NancyP: Good grief! Is anyone wondering how they will read their email, program buttons and boxes, and so on? 1650 x 1080 native is already hard to read , font size can be very small. If I want to pixel peep within Lightroom , I can do so easily in my mid-2010 MBP 15", and if I want to do color-critical work and printing, I do it on my calibrated NEC PA monitor.
Resolution independent OSes, where the dimensions of text, icons, and all visual objects in the GUI aren't dictated by pixel width and length.