jaxson: Well done Fuji.
Pentax take note! You should be leading this field, with years of prior experience in sensor stabilisation, but instead you've thrown that away and delivered that god aweful 'Movie SR'.
One simply can't ignore video capabilities in todays DSLRs or mirrorless devices.
That's funny, I've managed to ignore it completely.
Amazing how some people construe this as a negative.
rurikw: So if they can solve the problems with heat and longevity and put this stuff into our cameras there will be only one more problem to solve? How to get rid of Bayer interpolation without the drawbacks of the Foveon sensor?
It won't matter.
The sensor is 10X more sensitive (ie has 10X the photosite capacity). That means you can make pixels far smaller.
Combining pixels in camera in 2X2 or 3X3 grids would give each pixel a full colour readout with very low noise and no need for interpolation.
Kiril Karaatanasov: Is something wrong with my monitor or this Fuji is indeed worse than D5500 and A6000 by wide margin??? Noise is worse, detail is less IQ is just NOT THERE AT ALL
Yes, there is something wrong with your monitor. Is it a Sony?
nicolaiecostel: I don't think that the images are horrible, as some are saying, I just think that they aren't that good.
I expected better DR OOC from a Fuji sensor, but it seems that even with a little PP, you can't get away from the fact that this is a 24 Mp crop sensor camera.
I find the latitude to be rather small and noise creeps in easily when pushing the shadows, a la D300 or some older camera.
The ISO is quite good, I wouldn't expect a clean ISO6400 or 12800 from a crop camera anyways.
What I find bad is the color, especially the white balance. It' too cold outside and too warm inside and in artificial light. Even the PP'd outside shots are still too cold, unrealistic.
Some shots are fairly soft, due to the lens, the ISO400 shot under the bridge is toast from the PP. I feel that this is not a camera I would be confortable shooting with since I shoot manual and I have to PP a lot to get the exact look I want.
But if you're in the market for a top Fuji, you don't have much choice.
How on earth can you judge DR from a shot with a default tone curve?
Maybe, but on all camera review sites there is often a big disconnect between what people actually need, and the specifications of a camera that is reviewed. It's very easy to get camera envy for 42 megapixel cameras, but unless you print images at a decent size, it's a lot of money for no gain.
If people can relate their needs accurately to a camera's specifications, then it makes sense to choose according to those needs, but the biggest reason for wanting some feature seems to amount to the fact that some other camera has it, not that it's particularly useful or necessary given the intended usage.
It also gives rise to a permanent level of dissatisfaction, because some other camera is always better in some respect. On the other hand, it may not be fun to use, which - if you take pictures as a hobby - is far more important.
I met Toshihisa Iida, along with Dave Hobby and Zack Arias at a Fuji event in London a few years ago. The auditorium was full, and this was before the XT1 was even announced. Afterwards, some of us piled into a nearby pub basement for a chat with the speakers.
Toshihisa was enthusiastic, candid, funny, and extremely fluent in English. No doubting the commitment to the brand and its future, or their determination to follow a different path.
They were surprised by the reception to the X100, but it highlighted a core market that everyone was ignoring in the race to have the broadest appeal.
For those that love Fuji cameras, there is no competition. For those that don't, there are many alternatives. Fuji had no intention of ignoring their core customer base, even as they worked on diversifying the range and expanding their appeal. With the XT, XE, XA and Xpro, and a well planned lens range, they have done so. Now it is just a matter of refinement.
57even: Here is an interesting thought.
If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?
While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.
Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)
I guess you should try them for yourself. I have owned several DSLRs and only two MILCs. The latter are far more accurate and consistent, whatever the scene. Neither are current generation either. That matters to me.
Some DSLRs, and only the top ones, have an edge over the best MILCs when it comes to tracking at changing distances, but when was the last time you tried a consumer SLR? They suck.
As far as tracking lateral movement, MILCs are already just about there, and far better in most respects than most consumer DSLRs. That only took around 5 years.
In a few years, the top end of the range will catch up to Canon 1Ds and Nikon D4s. As for the stop motion issue, refresh rates are getting better too, and at least you don't have the mirror blackout.
Burst speed is already higher, moreso in some cases.
Besides, I don't shoot fast sports for a living, so I don't really care. I worry far more about accuracy. I can get enough keepers for most motion-based shooting to get by.
Interesting. Matrix meters only maintain focus lock on the subject, something they have been doing for quite a while so its hardly an innovation. However, MILCs have a lot more AF sensors across more of the frame and do this rather better on the whole.
As for low light sensitivity and predictive AF, they have already matched a D7000 for speed. On the other hand, the D7000 had more complaints about AF accuracy that any other I can remember. Until the D800 possibly. Or the Canon 5Dmk2. Or...
And they all assume their cheap plastic Rebel will focus like a 1Ds.
The cameras you see on the touchlines of NFL games also have better AF than 95% of other DSLRs. Mirrorless has already caught up with most of them.
Nor do those cameras on the touchlines have better AF than they did 8 years ago. In another five years, they will still have the same AF and mirrorless will probably have overtaken them.
What will your reasoning be then?
The D7200 is based on an AF system first seen in the D3 and D300 in 2008 and not fundamentally changed since.
So where is the 'new' technology? It still has all the issues inherent in an indirect focus system and is just a refinement of previous technology going back far longer than that.
M W B G: No body wants to learn how to use a camera or how to get the best results through trial and error it seems. Sounds like most of you here just want the camera to do everything for you. I enjoy an ovf, and rarely look at the picture just taken. I've learned my camera, trust my instinct and am very happy with the photos I produce. I know what exposure compensation I'm going to need if I think I need it in a situation. It all came from learning the camera and not having to relearn a new mark II or III or whatever new model comes out every six months.(although you don't have to buy the upgrades I suppose) I would like a evf maybe if I was using a manual focus lens as the dslr focusing screens today are meant primarily for AF lenses and aren't precise enough for fast manual lenses. A guy could use live view but it's quite slow imo. Shoot what you like, learn the camera you have, enjoy photography. I don't see the need for the arguing on these forums.
"I don't see the need for the arguing on these forums".
There would be a deafening silence in that case... ;-)
I am less convinced that most matrix metering systems are entirely predictable. Some algorithm making decisions for me leads to less ability to assume what it will do.
I find an EVF quite useful, even after 35 years using a variety of cameras. The last time I could 'nail' exposure using a film camera was when I used the cameras' spot meter and did a quite zone check. A good EVF with an easy to reach EV comp dial is a real boon.
Here is an interesting thought.
Nuno Souto: Once again, the elephant in the room has been missed...Mirrorless is by design more precise for focusing for one very simple reason: it doesn't have to rely on a flipping mirror subject to imprecise stops potentially causing it to introduce errors in focusing.What many slr makers try to hide is that the mirror mechanism is a major cause of failed focus shots in their hardware. And it's been so since the days of film!With mirrorless, that is simply impossible. Hence why I switched 5 years ago and have never looked back: if my Oly says it's in focus, it is. And checking for sure in really difficult situations is as easy as twitching the focus ring: it immediately shows me a magnified section of the image where it's dirt easy to get precise focus on. Try to take a shot of an animal through reeds with a slr and then with a mirrorless camera and it'll become very clear why mirrorless is the way to go!
"My dslr focuses before the mirror flips up for the shot, like all dslr's. Maybe you mean mirrorslap for fuzzy images?"
Actually, when the mirror is down, there is a secondary mirror attached to the rear that reflects light into the AF sensor in the camera floor. Any misalignment of that mirror, or the AF sensor, and AF will be unreliable.
Nimbifer: What i want ... in addition to size/weight advantage:* EVF to see image as it will be recorded* silent operation (once we finally get global shutter without any moving parts/mech shutter stuff)* zero vibration (once mech shutter is finally eliminated)
Improvements needed* AF performance ... Despite DPR hype its still not there. Needs to improve by factor 10, especially tracking moving subjects* better battery charge - especially larger, expensive FF models like Sony A7 mk II should really do 1000 shots per charge - there is space for a regular 12+ Watthrs standard DSLR-battery. And better battery tech getting available, so 20 Watthrs should be feasible already. * lens lineup - still poor. Too big, too expensive as far as fuji X goes (esp. For only APS-C image circle) and Sony FE - not intereszed in overpriced zeiss badge, i want FF equivalent to canon EF-M lenses: as small as possible, optically highly competent and dirt cheap.
What i want ... in addition to size/weight advantage:* EVF to see image as it will be recorded
* silent operation (once we finally get global shutter without any moving parts/mech shutter stuff)
Most now support electronic first curtain and full silent mode. No vibration.
* zero vibration (once mech shutter is finally eliminated)
epx141: I will consider a mirrorless when it does not cost 4x the price of the equivalent DSLR and it mounts Nikon F lenses.
They already do. If you want AF as well, you'll have to wait for the adapter.
After these announcements, they may as well close the still camera business down. Who would buy one if the commitment is not there to support the future product line?
Ironically, this commitment was never forthcoming, hence Samsungs never sold well in the UK anyway. Trying to get accessories or repairs was a joke.
Samsung make disposable consumer items. If they can't be updated over the web, they have no solutions.
It's a real shame, as there was nothing wrong with the technology.
Jonathan F/2: Only amateurs shoot RAW!
So there is only one type of professional photographer?
I don't know a single pro fashion, advertising, portrait or landscape photographer who doesn't shoot raw.
Of course, if you just shoot news events, who cares?
instamatic: You really don't need RAW most of the time - if speed of delivery is important - like stated here. Proper photography discipline and understanding of lighting will produce excellent JPGs out of camera probably like 95% of the time.
What struck me here, is that the size needs to be limited at 3500 px longest edge, which is about 8 megapixels. This goes contrary to some of the stuff one could read in the past, which stated, that stuff under 11 megapixels is not accepted, etc., etc. But then that probably applied to stock images.
All-in-all I think it's a wise decision, and allows the use of a smartphone alone to download and transfer images to the news agency.
8 megapixels = 4K roughly (diff aspect ratio though).
Way more than enough for newsprint, but they are clearly future proofing their image database for online viewing.