Typical lack of imagination from a monopoly software company. The only people this makes the remotest amount of sense to are multi-licensed companies that upgrade to each new version, and even then it's no saving.
If they want to stop piracy, they should reduce the cost not increase it. This is about the most stupidly arrogant act of self defeating customer alienation I have even come across.
There are many possibly leasing models, including ones which would not include automatic upgrades. You could do it yourself for a one off fee as an when you choose to. That could easily keep the price to a similar level for infrequent upgraders, which is most pro photographers working for themselves and most hobbyists like myself.
And it does not really stop cracked versions being released either. More likely to encourage it in fact. After all, it still runs native.
kimchiflower: Good grief! That's a disproportionately large chunk of glass on that camera.
That's presumably why they made the Xpro1 suitably chunky.
Biological_Viewfinder: We've tried out 3 Panasonics over the years for my wife who enjoys photography but doesn't enjoy dSLR weight; and all 3 of them were noisy messes that wouldn't auto-focus well.
Funny, I seem to manage just fine. User error?
57even: Nice job Panny. Have to say if I was in the market for a hybrid travel and street camera, this would be top contender. Video performance is very impressive. Quite pricey though.
The biggest weight problem I have when travelling is lenses and a tripod. This camera is light enough and the lenses are even lighter and very compact. A travel tripod or Gorillapod is more than useful for a camera this light with no mirror slap.
Any smaller, and handling becomes an issue, especially for video. At about the size of a low-end DSLR, this is perfect.
A comprehensive kit would easily fit in a man-bag or small daypack, and not even register on a carry on weight scale. There are some very fast lenses which offset some of the low light/DOF issues compared to a FF camera as well.
If I was a PJ I would seriously consider this combo.
Nice job Panny. Have to say if I was in the market for a hybrid travel and street camera, this would be top contender. Video performance is very impressive. Quite pricey though.
There's a hack for that (or there soon will be...)
I like it, with one of these I could probably dispense with my 7" tablet and my phone, though the contract has a while to go.
I'm all for convergence myself, but it is way too big for pockets in the summer time. I'll probably just downgrade my phone to a cheap dumb handset and use it with my Nexus 7.
mpgxsvcd: I would have liked to see 1080p @ 60 FPS but I understand why they didn't include it since it is a "cinema" camera.
Native resolution (no line skipping and much smaller data volume) will help with smoothness. This is really an interesting development!
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Beautiful camera but raws are way too soft compared to the other cameras. What's the excuse this time? Not depth of field again, I expect...
It depends which part of the image you look at. However, using the same sharpening settings for Xtrans as you do for Bayer is possibly not the best approach. Seems to work best if you add a little bit in ACR first.
SiliconVoid: Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
I don't get the logic here. Just because other camera makers have second rate JPEG engines and need RAW conversion to get more detail does not make it a given that RAW should always provide greater detail.
Fujis JPEGs (S5 included) have always been good on detail. RAW is there in case you need more exposure latitude or more extreme tonal manipulation. Why turn a positive (JPEGS are really sharp) into a negative (RAWs are no sharper)?
Surely the argument should be that other cameras have inadequate JPEGs?
57even: Reminds me why I got a mirrorless camera.
I only commented for the express purpose of annoying you, obviously.
But if you are dumb enough to use such a poorly designed piece of rubbish (poor strap design and no rigid harness) for carrying anything over 10kg of camera gear, then I will guarantee you some hefty physio bills in your fifties. If you use it in sling mode, make that forties, after which you will be looking at mirrorless cameras too.
There are better solutions out there and if you care about your long term health I would not skimp on the cost. Either that or just get a lighter camera.
Reminds me why I got a mirrorless camera.
papillon_65: Excellent, just what the world needs, another small black camera losing the inherent advantages of its format (ergonomics) whilst still have to mount large lenses on it, way to go Canon, let me guess, it was a friday afternoon and you only had a cigarette packet to write on ?
PDAF is not a panacea, it's only as accurate as the camera's manufacturing tolerances and only as fast as the lens. CDAF works directly off the sensor, so it's always accurate.
The only advantage they have is with moving subjects, but this advantage is pretty slim with low end SLRs, low spec AF systems and kit lenses. PDAF is also starting to emerge on CSC models now, so this advantage wont last forever either.
Would I buy into an SLR system now? Probably not. I have built up a substantial investment in Nikon gear over the years and use it for gigs, events, sport, airshows etc. But it looks ridiculously clumsy beside any CSC camera. When Fuji make some longer lenses and introduce PDAF on sensor, it's going to be harder to justify owning both a CSC and a D600, and it won't be the SLR I keep. The quality difference in A2 prints is already marginal.
What's with the size obsession? I'm a normal sized adult Caucasian male, and even the grip on the old Rebel was too small.
At least CSC cameras have small, light lenses so the grip is far less important. But being the smallest and lightest DSLR is kind of pointless if practically EVERY CSC is smaller still.
It's like being the lightest person in the slimming club.
jameshamm: A better concept would be to follow more closely a design vastly superior to today's camera designs: The eye.
Start with a spherical sensor and suddenly your lens can be surprisingly simple. You say it's too hard to build? A sensor is made by depositing chemicals on a back plane. The only thing that's hard about it is to ramp up production.
When you can create an optically perfect parabolic silicon wafer and mass produce it let me know.
OldArrow: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers. And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera. Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.
To be fair, some PJ environments are tough on gear, others are not. I know quite a few still using their old D2Xs, because they are incredibly rugged, file sizes are small and quality is not very important (uploading low qual JPEGs is fine for newspapers and web).
Then again, this very site has shown PJ work done on smart phones. Just saying...
Seems the people who always go for the latest DSLRs these days are sports photographers (OK I can see that) and videographers.
But that's hardly the sum-total of "professional photography", it just happens to be the one Canon and Nikon care about.
zinedi: Again and again - no built-in viewfinder - no camera. Be happy Fuji - competition is still blind. Competition still sleeping.
Size is not an end in itself, at least in functional terms, though looking at some new Japanese cameras you do wonder.
There comes a point when something can be too small to have necessary features or handle comfortably. Not having an eye finder which can accurately check focus on a high resolution large sensor camera is a nonsense, RX1 especially.
This camera has been aimed squarely at Nikon SLR users to stop them buying competitors CSCs, but it's a niche in a niche - really doesn't have broad based appeal at this price.
Interesting that Fuji got some criticism for the "bulk" of their cameras but the upside is that they can build faster, higher quality lenses. As compromises go it's one I personally appreciate. The lenses are still quite a bit smaller than SLR equivalents but still fast, beautifully made and easy to handle.
I like 28 for street work. Reminds me of the Ricoh GR series.
You can always crop a bit but you can't always stand back far enough. Don't need one, don't plan on getting one, but I can see why some people would love to have one of these in the bag with their SLR for opportunistic shots, and the sensor is well proven.
For Nikon users it's nice to have a compact that can exploit the same development parameters as their SLRs.
My only question is why don't they release a fixed lens zoom version of the 1 series (not instead of this but as a competitor to the RX100, which hits the performance/convenience sweet spot for a lot of users).
gl2k: Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.
There is far more detail loss in the other cameras. Fuji are not cooking the raw files, the demosaic method for this camera simply removes a lot of chroma noise. The default sharpening on the ACR release candidate is also very low. The converter that comes with the camera is a lot crisper, but ACR sharpens up pretty well too.