onlooker: Some of the comments here like "have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then" drive me crazy. It is not about THE human, it is about A human in a given situation. It is about human condition.
This reaction may be partly because this site is polluted by portraits of grinning street kids. It may be because, despite protests, DPR condones sick photo challenges like "A file I would like to punch".
Look at the work of many of the photographers whose names I posted earlier, and you may understand. Do you think Henri Cartier-Bresson should have chased some of his subjects? Really?
Or perhaps it is because you think that someone wants a photo of your face and wants to stare at you later? Then you need to get over yourself. It's not about you.
@JJ1983: There is an interview with a lawyer, who wrote a book specifically about laws concerning photographers.The interview (in German): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVLAMB7GTM&The book he wrote (also in German): https://www.galileo-press.de/recht-fur-fotografen_2904/
km25: I have only tried the WiFi at home. Do you have to work off some public WiFi, or do you just need the camera and phone.
You just need the camera and your phone.The camera creates its own WiFi.
"Have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then".That's the law in Germany and (I'm sure) some other countries - whether you like it or not.In fact the law in Germany states that you have to ask before taking the picture, but most likely you will get away if you have the decency to ask afterwards.
However, since you are American and most likely don’t care about the laws in foreign countries: Have you ever tried to take the picture of somebody else’s child? And did you tell the mother of that child when she went berserk: “Don’t worry, mam. It’s not about your child it’s about the human condition!”And if you did: How long did it take you to get out of prison?
Chrysanthi Lykousi: The video is amazing. I hope camera manufacturers like Fuji can create new cameras that are more useful to street photographers who take pictures without permission or against our subjects' will: We need cameras that don't look like cameras. Wi-fi and silent shutter are useful features, but in many street situations just being visible with a camera at hand is a cause of alarm to nearby people. We need cameras that can be camouflaged as other objects or hidden under our clothes.
You don't sound like a photographer, you sound like some creepy voyeur.
skogredd: It puzzles me that, up to this very day, people believe those Apollo missions indeed went to the moon! Today, such poorly faked images and footage would seem completely ridiculous.But the Hasselblad cameras actually did work.
@Nishi Drew:There is NOT ONE plausible argument, that the Moon landings were faked.On the other hand there's actually a LOT of evidence, that the Moon landings were real.
For example:* The Apollo missions brought back 382 kg of Moon rocks. Samples of these rocks are spread all over the world and have been examined by countless scientists. They are unique and different from earth rocks.* The Apollo missions placed reflectors on the Moon. Countless scientists all over the world aim laser beams at this reflectors. Only because of these reflectors we are able to measure the distance of the Moon so precisely, that we know the Moon is spiralling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year.
PS.: The US sent men to the Moon to prove, that they could do, what the USSR could not do. What’s the point in repeating this again and again?
Tailwagger: What an awesome system Fuji is building. As an owner of the 23, 35, 60, 18-55 and 55-200 lenses as well as an X-E1, X100s and now the XT-1, I'm somewhat perplexed at the comments on AF speed. It is miles ahead of the updated X-E1, which is certainly as fast or faster than the X-Pro. It's also much snappier than the X100s. Presumably firmware updates will eliminate this disparity for the X100s and the X-E2, but the bottom line is that AFAIC AF speed is no longer an issue. And the manual focus tools are now terrific. The EVF and display are world class. In short, its a truly fabulous upgrade for those early X system adopters and totally worthy of consideration for those who've decided that APS-C is their format of choice.
AF speed will be an issue as long as mirrorless cameras don't focus as fast as the best DSLRs out there.Right now you can't measure the distance in AF speed between a good DSLR and the X-T1 in kilometres.You have to measure the distance in light years.
In good light the X-T1 focuses a bit faster than the X-E1.In bad light there's hardly a difference.(FYI: I own both.)
Couscousdelight: I'm not very impressed with the XT1's sensor performances :http://uppix.net/Ir2rfL.jpgThere is less noise, but details are blurred, the Fuji is the only camera where you can't read the paint tube's label. and what append to red & purple tones ?
The tube is in the uper left corner of the studio scene.The sharpness in the center is a lot better than in the corners.
The reason for that, of course, is not the camera but the lens.
rsf3127: Is this Fuji camera twice as good as the Sony a6000 to justify that price? Almost the same as a FF body...eeek.
Is the Nikon D4s 5 times as good as the X-T1 and 10 times as good as the a6000 to justify that price?
TheDreamingWatchman: Cameras have only a small hump at the back, but a big one at the front.And there's a good reason for that. The reason is our hand.
But this one has the big hump on the back.
The hump has to be at the front, because your fingers can bend and can grab it.The heel of hand cannot bend; therefore a camera needs to have a flat surface at the back.It's as simple as that.
Why do small cameras have no humps?Why do small cameras not have big lenses?Because they are meant to be small!
Cameras have only a small hump at the back, but a big one at the front.And there's a good reason for that. The reason is our hand.
grock: I used to think the comments on indie music blogs were the worst, but photography websites are really catching up. So much freaking jealousy and pettiness. So many people here can't stand it if someone is successful if they have what are deemed to be less than perfect technical skills with a camera, or if their composition seems amateurish or non-groundbreaking. Photography exists so that people can look at and enjoy photographs. Guess what? If someone enjoys looking at a photo you took, you succeeded. Nothing else--the brand and cost of your camera, the artistic merit, the people paying for the photo, the post-processing, the lack of preparation, etc-- matters.
@vFunct:Congratulation! This may well be the stupidest posting of the months.
newe: What happened to this company? Only distributing betas?
That's a rather stupid remark.There always has been a beta of Lightroom before the final version was released.
HawaiiVolcanoes: Everyone hates Adobe. Adobe is a company that needs to go away.
Actually, I quite like Adobe.I don't like the CC-licensing for Photoshop, but I like Lightroom a lot.Lightroom is a very fine piece of software. Not perfect, not without quirks, but still very good.I hope Lightroom flourishes and there are a lot of new versions with new features yet to come.
nofumble: Supersize your sensor please
@ tkbslc:That's one way to look at it.But as we all know: Size matters.And comparing sizes (=area), APS-C is 60% larger than m43.And FF is nearly 4 times larger.
skb1957: Thanks a lot dear Erez Marom. Through your sincere & sheer hard work, you have shown the World, how GOD looks like. It is one of the Almighty's Avatar. Your workflow on the project "Shooting Goðafoss" was a blessing in disguise for Photographers like me, who always look for creativity. Thanks once again...
If that were true the Tsunami in 2004 killing over 200.000 people also was God's avatar.
AngryCorgi: Really wish Fuji would go back to bayer filters on their sensors. At the very least offer ONE interchangeable bayer option for its really sweet X system. The IQ of RAW files with this idiotic xtrans filter still is way behind bayer-filtered 16MP sensors. Cameralabs.com illustrates this very well with their X-M1 review and resolution results. The EP-5 and GF6 even blow it away in JPEG and RAW. Please, Fuji, see the light and bring us a "B" camera that uses your "X" mount!!
@IchiroCameraGuy: This page compares JPEGs.If you compare JPEGs you compare the processing (e.g. sharpening) done in camera. You do not compare the camera or the sensor.
Look at the noise comparison an you will see that the EOS-M does not stand a chance.
I have had a Canon 7D for years and I never knew how noisy and mushy my 7D is - until I got a X-E1.
David Hardaway: I had the X-E1 for a short while. Moved to EOS M. The X-Trans is the issue for this camera. All shots included above, especially the young lady outside look sick. Flat, unsharp, and no detail. I use 5DMIIs for paid work, but for family and vacation shots I would be very upset to come back from long vacation to see all my photos looking anything like those in the examples. Fuji should ditch the X-Trans and refund people their money or send replacement camera with Bayer sensor. The X100 with Bayer sensor was the best. They should have stuck with that. Anyone else, in my opinion, that believes that the images in the test look good for $1k camera is in denial.
The picture with the woman in the blue tracksuit was shot at ISO 2000!The other woman is ISO 6400!!Did you just miss these facts or are you in denial?
Pictures taken with any(!) Canon APS-C Camera at these ISO values look just pathetic compared to the X-Trans sensor.
Are you kidding? Or just trolling?
Cameralabs conclusion (comparing X-M1, E-P5 and GF6): "Regardless of the technicalities the X-M1's sensor comes out of this comparison a winner by a clear margin."
And comparing X-E1 and the EOS-M (same sensor size) they conclude: "This is a fairly emphatic win for the X-E1 over the EOS M."
Did you even read the review at Cameralabs???
hassannabeel: "Who has created the seven heavens one above another; you can see no fault in the creation of the Most Gracious. Then look again: "Can you see any rifts?"
Yeah, actually I can see several rifts in the rings of Saturn.
HowaboutRAW: At least on the English parts of the Carl Zeiss website, there's no information on Fuji X mount Zeiss lenses--even as an upcoming thing.
A search of the Zeiss website for the terms "Fuji X" provides no results.
1.) The blog is part of the official website.
2.) Dr. Michael Pollmann, Consumer Lenses Product and Program Manager says:"Since the introduction of Sony’s NEX-7 and Fujifilm’s X-Pro 1, it became obvious that CSC cameras required quality lenses. So we decided that the time was ripe to bring such lenses to the market."
"The new lenses will be available for Sony E-bayonet (Sony NEX cameras) and for Fujifilm X-bayonet (Fujifilm X cameras)."
These are two official statements from an official representative on the official site of Zeiss (that you could not find even when I gave you the correct link).