G3User: This guy is a joke. Sliding levers in Photoshop does not make you a great photographer. It may make you a good artist. My teenage daughter can slide levers and apply instacrap filters also. It's too bad he has to resort to these gimmicks to make his photos interesting (there not by the way). They are all over processed. We don't even know what the camera captured. You could get these images from a cell phone and then Photoshop them to death which he has done here. What a waist of space on dpreview, they should only profile real photographers, not illustrators like this guy.
The only joke is your comment.
I have always marvelled at Sony's ability to build a great camera while taking all the fun out of using it. Ironic considering the near perfection of some of the top end Alpha SLRs, designed and built by the remnants of the old Minolta team.
Perhaps their DNA is finally infiltrating Sony. It's been at least a decade now...
afm: No mushy greens or waxy skin tones like the X-E2 then although it has the same sensor and processor!!
Only a JPEG issue. Different JPEG processing? RAW is exactly the same as all other Xtrans cameras.
Mike99999: The watercolor look from this camera is unacceptable (e.g. as shown by Steve Huff).
How often do you have to repeat yourself. Steve Huff seems very pleased with his XT1, and most everyone else has found various solutions to the LR/ACR sharpness issue.
gerard boulanger: I was surprised to see a very DR range between X-Pro 1 and X-T1, about 2 stops...
JPEG DR is not really DR. It's just the JPEG tone curve. RAW files are the same for all Xtrans cameras. Which means high levels of black recovery...
Glad the Pentax engineers still have a job and are refining their ergonomics. K5 was a very nice camera and this looks like a good upgrade. Still wish I had a green button on my D800, and I also wish it was even half as comfortable to hold.
DaveE1: To those who decry the use of Photoshop (or other editing tools), just accept that no photo EVER has been a true representation of the real world.
The day we have a camera that can do that, is the day DPReview gives their 101% - Extra Shiny Platinum Award at the end of that camera review ;-)
Every film, camera sensor and associated technology alters the image. Photoshop alters the image. We all produce images that are altered from the scene we captured, whether we like it or not. Indeed, many Photoshopped images are closer to the real scene than what the camera produced prior to editing.
Let's get over ourselves and make the most of hardware and software technology to produce images that we are personally proud of. If others like them, great! :-)
I completely agree. This religious attitude to post processing is inexplicable. Film is hardly realistic, especially black and white film.
A digital file is just a set of RGB values adjusted by the camera (or Photoshop) to produce a contrast response that is a good default for a flat image. Most images are not flat, so you need to make further adjustments in post to even approximate the adjustments the brain makes when it sees the same scene.
None of which can make up for poor composition, focus or choice of aperture etc.
iAPX: It's pretty interesting, as China is an emerging country, they are trying to protect consumers, and seems to be more pro-active at this than US or Europe!
Probably because most of their consumer programmes and magazines are not entirely reliant on their advertisers, or living in constant fear of a lawsuit for libel.
Anastasios Papatsoris: It is clear the dynamic range of X-E1 is substantially better than X-E2's capturing much more shadow detail.
There is no difference in dynamic range at all. There is a difference in the default tone curve used in each camera for processing JPEGs. What this has to do with dynamic range (it should actually be JPEG exposure range) I will never know.
Since nearly everyone boosts contrast in post processing, Fuji merely adjusted the default tone curve to be more contrasty. You can adjust the camera many ways to offset this if you insist on shooting JPEGs.
plasnu: There is aesthetic issue with film simulation without doubt. They do look fake, and they actually are.
All photos are fake, specially on film. A camera is not a photocopier. Exact duplication is not part of the brief.
waxwaine: "Mirrorless is the future" ( with deep serious voice) ... jajaja(lol)You can't replace photographic experience with an lcd. Ask any photographer kow much they love the sound of mechanical shutter.Then, MILCs can be replaced by phones, but this is not the case for DSLRs.
My MILC has a mechanical shutter. It sounds very nice too.
57even: Phone cameras probably only account for the loss of compact sales. Higher end sales are being damaged purely by people's lower spending and unwillingness to use credit.
Any maker who is centred in the enthusiast market, content to maintain a relatively small volume business, and has a relatively diverse business portfolio which can mask small losses in cameras, can probably tough it out by selling fewer models and building higher value luxury products with good margins.
Those at greatest risk are the companies whose revenues are highly volume dependent and who have substantial investment in plant, production and distribution, especially if cameras are a large proportion of total income.
Fuji are a very diverse company, cameras don't even have their own division. They also have a very niche market share and are aiming for the enthusiast. If their executives are patient, I think they can pull through. I think they diversified the line too fast into the wrong markets though. Seemingly they recognise this so I expect a 4 model ILC lineup in future (M, E, T and Pro).
Sigma are more dependent on the camera market, so I am not so sure. Their ART lenses are an attempt to hit the core SLR enthusiast market, but I don't know how badly the lack of camera sales for Nikon and Canon affects Sigma. They may even benefit as they provide cheaper, good value versions of pro lenses, but the general decline cannot help them much.
Phone cameras probably only account for the loss of compact sales. Higher end sales are being damaged purely by people's lower spending and unwillingness to use credit.
Eigenmeat: ACR is still a blurry mess compare to OOC JPGs.
57even: Read the Fuji interview, then the Nikon one. Interesting.
Clearly Nikon know that the consumer (APSC) future will have to be mirrorless. They have the technology well in hand, probably even have a number of production ready prototypes, but they wont do it before Canon does, and Canon wont do it before Nikon does. No-one is blinking right now, but when they press that button the whole market will turn upside down.
The risk to Nikon will be that they have no way to differentiate themselves from the pack any more. Nikon would have to cannibalise sales of its (bread winning) mid range SLR line, with no guarantee of matching sales in a parallel mirrorless line. Indeed, by blessing mirrorless, they may open the taps for Fuji, Sony etc. since having legacy lenses will no longer be an incentive to stay with Nikon.
Of course if Canon move, they will have no choice. Which one will move first?
I think in some markets the revolution already happened, but the big brands have a lot of marketing muscle and some consumer groups just buy Nikon or Canon because they feel they are the reliable brand.
If they produced a good mirrorless product that competed with their APSC SLRs, people would look at the badge and think OK this mirrorless thing must be OK then.
But this is also a problem, because they cannot then guarantee dominance. Nor will they benefit from the reflected glory of their pro cameras because people can't buy a "mini" D4 when they buy their D3200. Nor can they buy lenses which they can later use when they upgrade to FF (not that all that many ever do).
The biggest issue for both makers is their legacy. Enthusiasts generally have a nice collection of Nikon glass which could suddenly become redundant overnight if the market perceives a general shift.
Look at the sales numbers of APSC and FF and get back to me on that.
Read the Fuji interview, then the Nikon one. Interesting.
km25: His last commet about FF. Do the lens they make now have focus circle large enough for FF? He said it was after the road map would be done. I just cannot see Fuji being like Sony and dumping a whole line of lens. What ever they do I can only hope they will keep the lens, who wants to buy a new set of lens. I hope they will keep this in mind.
FF is not an upgrade to APSC, its a more specialised format that has advantages in specific areas but it is NOT a replacement.
Any more than everyone with a 35mm SLR "upgraded" to MF. I had both, and used 35mm a lot more. MF was my landscape and portrait camera. Same is now true with APSC and FF. Weight and quality difference is about the same... about 1 print size (A2 - A1) advantage and double the overall system weight.
Fuji would do well to start with a new camera and mount optimised for FF.
erichK: Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
(It is true that Fuji has come up with some really interesting new technologies in very attractive cameras, but the provenance of the design parameters for their new flagship is painfully obvious!)
They must have developed it pretty fast to "copy" the OM1.
Be serious, there is NO similarity except for the resemblance to the SLR form, which is hardly "new". Every major control point is completely different.
Tungsten Nordstein: Oooh, it's too weird. Oooh it's too ugly. Ooooh, it's only a fixed lens. Ooooh, I don't believe the new sensor is any good. Ooooh, it hasn't got an EVF. Ooooh, my pockets are too small. Oooooh, you can't pick it up with one hand, Oooooh ,you can't pick it up with two hands. Oooooh, you can't pick it up with three hands. Ooooh. Sigma how dare you! Oooooh, Oooooh, Oooooh!
Summary of DPReview readers' opinions.
How about "Ooooh they have completely lost the plot?"