atone2: Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)
Atone2, try the jpegs someday, you may be surprised. And if you can manipulate curves, you can probably tweak your jpeg to taste with no ill effect on quality whenever you want something different.As for shooting the 135/2 on the 5D, I get the same effect by shooting the Nikon 85/1.4 (cream machine) on my X-A1. Yes, yes, I wish it could AF. But when I show the pictures, only I know that it doesn't.Oh, and did you know that the X-A1 actually has a bayer sensor? You have no more excuse ;)
EssexAsh: not quite flogging a dead horse , but come on, how much more can they drag this sensor out.
But I hate changing computer just to keep up with the megapixels overload.
TangoMan: Will it smudge the skin and make it look orange, when shooting jpeg at 6400 ISO? That is the question... I hope the public outcry was heard from their offices.
Seriously, I see you everytime I come to this forum. You can't be unaware of what I am talking about. The X-A1 definitely doesn't have the problem exhibited by the X100s, X-E2 and X-T1.
Daniel, I have to disagree with you, maybe because I set Noise Reduction to -2.When I say "smudge", I don't say the world lightly. It describes pretty well the X100s treatment of skin colored objects at high iso. It's not across the image, it's a engineering decision to smooth out the faces of people, but in an excessive manner over which the user as no control in Jpegs.
I am extremely satisfied with the jpegs from the X-A1, and can't complain when using manual focus lenses or AF lenses for static AF, but I wish there was a cameras that would give me the same quality AND a speedy, predictive AF. The X100s was the first with the new wax skin treatment and people started complaining. Then the X-E2 had the same problem and people complained louder. Then the X-T1 followed with no cure. I will be watching the first samples from the X100T as they may indicate a new jpeg hardware processor that would find its place in future system cameras...
This lens could have been 400g easily. Yep, less than a pound. And it could be small too! If only they had used a three lens element design in a sliding cardboard tube, all the weight savings they could have made!Alas! They decided to weight down each and every past and future Fuji X camera owner by releasing on all of them that epic optic.
Plentyaskin my good man, I'm still waiting for a fuji camera that can both focus fast like the 2nd and 3rd generation x's, and deliver beautiful jpegs at high ISO like the 1st generation bodies. Why they had to screw up their gorgeous jpeg engine, I don't know. Why they didn't make their "improvements" optional, I don't know.
16 Mpx seems extraordinary for lowlight and quite sufficient for most of us.
Will it smudge the skin and make it look orange, when shooting jpeg at 6400 ISO? That is the question... I hope the public outcry was heard from their offices.
Why are the photos so small? 442x448 pixels for the first one. That is 9.5% of my monitor's available pixels. Can we get a full screen mode please?I can't tell for sure, but they look like very interesting pictures.
Mikhail Tal: I can't believe DPR actually fell for this cheap photoshop job. It's impossible for those people and their reflections to not be composited into the image after the fact. People don't just float in mid-air and if they had jumped from a helicopter or something, not only would you see the reflection of that in the water as well but you could never get enough exposure for those shots at such a fast shutter speed required to capture someone falling at a high speed.
Hey Mr. Tal I see your name everywhere on the forums and I don't know... maybe time for a photo break? Why not go out with a camera (preferably with slide film, so you will believe your results) and try to find all the ways you could do similarly "impossible" pictures. I'm pretty sure in less than an hour you will have tought of at least three ways of photographing the very thing you currently deem impossible and a cheap photoshop job.
tkbslc: It's a mini 60D!!
Either the 60D line is being killed, or the 70D is going to be awesome to be a step up from this.
"You can bet that the 70D will get a touchscreen. That's a given. I think all of Canon's DSLRs will eventually get"
In cold temperatures, touchscreen + gloves = useless screen.
TangoMan: My volume is maxed out and I still can't hear a thing. Had to turn off the radio and stick my head to the computer speaker...
It plays loud and clear on my 4 internal speakers Playbook Tablet :) (free advertising for an amazing tablet) :)
You nailed it Johan Borg! I went to my sound panel and as I turn the balance to left or right, the volume increases to an almost acceptable level on my monospeaker laptop.
My volume is maxed out and I still can't hear a thing. Had to turn off the radio and stick my head to the computer speaker...
EvanZ: Ok. No bokeh?
The bokeh of the 10-30 is exquisite, however the lack of background blur makes this hard to notice.