Jimmy jang Boo: dpr writes...
"The X-E2 isn't a great all-rounder... Not so good for sports or action photography."
No wonder MILCs can't gain any traction against DSLRs. Even the latest greatest are handicapped.
The latest and greatest Fujifilm is the X-T1 and has much better focus tracking.
zebediah: Fuji need to stop churning out the same camera every 3 months and work on putting out a new sensor. Moreover, the strange choice of high ISO noise reduction they introduced with the X100S, this camera and the new X-T1 makes me think they've already lost the plot.
I was going to recommend shooting on noise reduction set to "LOWEST" but saw this and it's pretty bad even on that setting! http://www.rachelrufferblog.com/for-photographers/fuji-x100s-ugly-noise-reduction-why-im-only-shooting-raw-now/
Even the full, non-pixel peeping version on a tiny web size has the softening clearly visible. :-/ I hadn't seen this before (I own the X100) and it surprises me since Fuji JPEG's are so celebrated.
JohnEwing: I don't own any of the cameras concerned. I'm still grinning with delight, though, over the X100 update, a real gift.
Fuji loom large in my future, I think.
I agree. Finally a company that actually honors their cameras of times past rather than considering 2-3 year old gear obsolete...
ConanFuji: I've been asking this for a long time. 1/How does it differ from the a 3 yr Nex 5????2/Does it have better IQ?3/How long is Fuji going to be stuck in 16MP. It's been more than 5 years.
What do you need more than 16 MP for? That's pretty sizable photos. You can at least make canvas sized prints for galleries and exhibitions with that, no problem at all. Higher resolutions tend to negatively affect noise levels, not to mention RAW photo sizes, so it's a tradeoff.
ConanFuji: They've been stuck on 16mp for half a decade
I don't need more. Certainly not for print size if printing a full 16 MP! What do you need more for, exactly? The only thing I can personally think of, is more room for cropping, but that's only because I use an X100 that can't zoom and sometimes need ~50-ish mm instead of 35.
Surprised about how open Fujifilm is, even saying they thought they released too many cameras too soon, confusing users, and bringing up the X-A1 vs X-M1 "issue". They come off very down to earth and open here. Good, exhaustive interview, DPReview!
I think it's cool how they use their film knowledge in processing algorithms. No wonder many have commented that Fujifilm output often feel less "digital".
Ovarland: no FF :(
Did you see the answer to the last question?
But if it happens, I'm sure it won't happen very soon. I don't think they need to either. Surely not for portraits, with that 56/1.2. And noise wise, they're already golden.
michael19843: Why did they not make this camera with a zoom lens? Pure mental concept to have two adapters. Just stick a zoom lens on it Fuji.
The X100(s) cameras are aimed for those who primarily shoot at 35mm equivalent but may want some minor flexibility, but still remaining in "normal" range. If you use a 28-50mm zoom lens instead, it couldn't be constant f/2.0 or would get huge for an APS-C sensor, and such a waste if you shot 35mm 80% of the time.
JohnEwing: Firmware update needed?
Yes, FW updates needed for both X100 and X100s. There was a wide angle mode added in an update for the X100 when the wide angle converter was released.
bstolk: Given enough megapixels, wouldn't cropping an image in software have the same effect as using a longer lens?Yes, you lose some resolution, but that is not a big deal if you shoot your images for the web and such?
True. But if you need to and use this one, you need to crop less. I've found that I often crop somewhat with my X100 so I think this one would be for me.
kriztian: Can one use it on x100 as well?
This depends on the forthcoming firmware too, however, but I assume Fujifilm will release a FW update for the X100 as well.
xeriwthe: i know that the practical intj type people at my workplace who scoffed at the concept and design of the x100 would be even more disdainful of people who purchased a monster teleconverter to add onto a fixed lens camera that is supposed to be discreet and compact.
but screw those people i want this. i love my x100s for the fun of taking photographs and this would add a little variety to the experience. 28, 35, 50mm.. x100s has me set for life!
Liked for an MBTI reference in a photo thread! :)
Yes, I would also like to have this. 50mm equivalent is an old favorite of mine, and I think I'm more eager to get this than their wide angle converter.
Haha, this series of gear is so Nikon. The tractor of photography, where they sure have reliability and proven technology going for them, but...
massimogori: Marketing guys make miracles.
Let's make it less capable than competition, let's remove the viewfinder and sell it as option, let's add bulk, let's make it pricey.
And there it is: a different market niche that will surely find its estimators.
The VF is sold as an option because of the new, larger and much better lens, and to make the bulk optional for only when you need it. I don't think it's pricey compared to the competition. This is a larger sensor than a micro 4/3 camera and has an awesome lens, which is the half of a camera. It's less expensive than e.g. a Fuji X100, but kind of pricey compared to a micro 4/3 with a cheap kit lens -- i.e. precisely where I think it should logically be.
It's larger than the RX100 but only because the RX100 has a smaller sensor and a, uh, limited... lens on the long end (f/4.9! @ 1" sensor, say no more). It's however smaller than an RX10, but that's because the zoom range is shorter. So one could consider this a middle ground, one that should have noticeably better image quality, noise performance, and depth of field control than both of these.
SiliconVoid: I was not aware DPR, or the photographic community in general, had begun evaluating camera equipment on the basis of whether the user, or subjective audience, is instantly elevated to being a better photographer simply by holding/using or viewing images taken with said equipment... O.oAn image does not need to awe its audience in subject, composition, or creative lighting in order to represent a technical example of what the equipment is capable of providing. These are 'real-world' shots after all, that means just like the bulk of your 'real-world' shots sitting on 'your' computer there are any number of images that would not impress anyone photographically..Just as one can strip a nut with a $75 wrench, someone else can get the job done with a $5 pair of pliers - the tool is being evaluated here, not the wielder... Enough already.
For people thinking mediocre images puts Fujifilm at a disadvantage, I have to disagree. Because DPReview almost always uploads mediocre images.
wyldberi: What's with the staff here at DPReview that they can't find time to review a significant new camera that was released nearly 5 months ago? From the comments posted here, there's obviously a strong interest in such a review.
I agree. I don't mean to whine, but it starts to become a problem when the excitement has already shifted to its successor in many respects (besides the rangefinder style).
Yes, it takes time to get a good "shooter's experience" view (and I assume it takes the most time in reviewing a camera) since then you actually need to spend time with the camera, but a page of opinions there shouldn't take more than, say, a month? That's about the timeframe I'm seeing on competing sites with shooter's experiences.
Robert Morris: Looks like Micro 4/3 has lost a lot of it size advantage with these new Fujifilm offerings.
I think the X-T1 should be compared to the size of the E-M1 if we are to compare against micro 4/3, not against E-PM2 and the likes which don't even have viewfinders.
If you're ready to give up a lot of features and grip just for size, maybe at least compare the EPM2 to an X-M1 instead. :)
Nikon, the company with about as much soul and customer connection as a rock.
Robert Garcia NYC: I hope the worlds fastest AF is not the usual B.S. from Fuji.
It's because the DOF is smaller on APS-C than micro 4/3, so that the AF mechanism has to work harder; they're simply working with the laws of optics against them. A manufacturer that designs an AF system as high-performing on APS-C as micro 4/3 has actually managed to design a better one than the corresponding one on the smaller format.
limlh: This is real, even more impressive than all the hype before announcement. The predictive focus tracking makes it the first mirrorless that photographers of sporting events can use as a workhorse, but we have to wait for Fujifilm to come up with good telephoto lens. As a bonus, it looks striking as well.
Yes, the big surprise to me was the predictive focus tracking in AF-C mode. It hadn't been rumored and bam, hits bull's eye in perhaps the Fujifilm X series greatest weakness. It doesn't seem like a gimmick either; another review said it locked on focus on a girl running towards him... with the Fuji 56/1.2 @ 1.2...