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.
Deleted pending purge: 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.
57even: Just for the record, and for all the people here whose opinions are so important (to them), I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. Make that around 10 so far.
So, if you don't like a camera for the simple reason that DPR likes it more that yours, there are three possible reasons....
1. They were considering the target user, not you. It's perfectly possible a more left field camera (Sigma DP1?) may actually work perfectly for you because the cons don't matter and the pros do - to YOU. Go for it. I respect your choice.2. You don't understand how the reviews are conducted and the significance of the findings and conclusions. This seems pretty common judging by the comments.3. You really need to grow up. No-one cares if you don't own the best camera in the world, or if you are insecure about making the "wrong" choice.
Just take photographs.
Look, you all can find things you disagree with, but look back through the review and there is usually a good reason for what they said.
But lets get one thing totally straight - I value THEIR opinion more that YOURS.
Just for the record, and for all the people here whose opinions are so important (to them), I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. Make that around 10 so far.
Joed700: I'm surprised by how this camera received the Gold Award! I was planning on getting this camera but the fact that it requires occasionally reboots changed my mind. I would think that issue like this should had been resolved before Fujifilm starting charging its customers $1,000 for a beta version of their product. Let's hope a firmware update will follow soon.
Never had to reboot once. Maybe some strange circumstances, but all you do is switch off and on.
digby dart: I commented first and then read some of the other comments... from the images I have seen around from this camera, taken in a variety of situations, I'd have given it a Sparkling Triple Mega Platinum Award.
At au$1200 with a totally excellent 35mm metal bodied prime its a gift. I read OMD, GH3 & D7000 in some comments, are we all pointing outward on the same planet, this thing delivers D4 results minimum - for that at au$1200 with a 'magic' prime thrown in I'd be happy focusing with a mechanical crank handle on the side.
For the grumbling cash flash grandads below, Nikon and Canon full framers are really nice gear, take excellent frames - these Fuji's just look to be heck of a lot better from build/ergonomics to image quality. Doesn't make your or my gear any less, this stuff is just heaps better for the money.
Like me for the moment, live with it. :-D
Not the ones I have on my PC. I actually prefer most of my Fuji shots to D600 ones. But nothing like judging something without understanding, huh.
topstuff: There are a lot of strange angry tribal gear heads here today.
The Nikonistas rant, the Canonites whine and hoorah, the Sonyettes bitch and the Olympusonians whimper.
Any photographers visiting just leave the site and go somewhere else.
There are a lot of people who feel very insecure about their decisions.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Where are the "equivalent aperture" trolls?
Same time Olympus do I guess. ISOs approximately match their films oddly enough.
Mike99999: To me the Fuji X-series is a case of the emperors new clothes. They basically take a Nikon D3100 or a Canon t2i, put it inside a shinier body, and sell it as if it's the greatest new thing. It is a pretty standard APS-C camera.
First of all the images look mushy at ISO 200. It doesn't look nearly as good as a D7000 or OM-D.
Second are the lenses. Everyone is hyping these lenses, as good as Leica, etc... Why? These Fuji lenses are really overrated. The corner softness is so bad I often think these are re-branded Sigma lenses.
If compactness is an issue, Olympus is convincing me better. If compactness is not an issue, Nikon and Canon get you more for less money. It just doesn't look as shiny.
Who says what is theoretical? I have an Xe1 and the IQ is amazing at higher ISOs and pretty darn good at low ones. My other camera is a D600 and there are many aspects of the Xe1's images I actually prefer, even if the Nikon has slightly more resolution.
Another armchair expert. If you like the Olympus buy one. I don't get why Oly users are so insecure.
As for the D7000, I owned one and there is no comparison. The IQ is far better on the Fuji, especially over ISO200.
backayonder: So the advice here is that for anyone who wants to take close up shots of Washinton Street signs or money is not to buy a Fuji. But for most other subject matter the Fuji will be fine.
Bayer has artifacts too, including the smearing caused by the AA filter and considerably more noise. Identifying artifacts in isolation without comparing prints is fairly meaningless, and I can assure you A2 prints look very good, even compared to a D600.
AbrasiveReducer: A nice improvement but as I look at the default sharpening vs. Capture One it still looks like you can't have it both ways. You can keep things sharp, and live with artifacts and halos or... you can lower the sharpness a little to minimize problems and add the sharpening back in at the end. Sort of a digital AA filter.
Who cares about defaults? With C1 it was hard to get rid of the colour and geometric moire but the level of fine detail isn't any higher, only the level of micro-contrast.
tomtom50: That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
No, but they had to incorporate the new development parameters and algorithms into their existing workflow. With Bayer, it's just tuning - there is no algorithmic difference in the underlying demosaicing algorithm. Every time you adjust a slider, the effect has to be recalculated and optimised, which is non-trivial.
d10694: It's not s dust issue. It's a quality control issue.
It may be, or it may be a specification issue. Either way it should have been checked in pre-production. Nikons are becoming quite prone to dirty sensors (D7000 for example).
Clyde Thomas: Disappointed in the direction Sony took my 9 series (on numerous levels), Nikon lost a potential new customer after my research turned up so many QC issues ignored by the company.
Good to hear of a public admission. That means a lot up front, and behind the scenes.
Sticking with trusty a900/700 for now until all this new tech matures a bit more.______EDIT: Oh, I see this is just for a "dust" issue. No mention of an "oil" issue. What's the big deal about dust? Folks been complaining about that since digital began. Must be those pesky nano coatings hitching rides on photons again...
Dust bunnies in the mirror box don't show up on photos. Moreover, when you change lenses, the sensor is largely protected by the mirror. Unless it's breezy or particularly dusty, you should not expect much to adhere to the sensor itself.
Certainly not the 30+ spots I had within a week of ownership and the same within a week of cleaning, the latter without involving a single lens change.
I just wonder if sending it in will result in a systematic internal clean, or just a sensor swab (which seems to be an extremely temporary fix).