Oh no! More skin smoothing!Examination of all the available images on the image comparison tool show that it works by smoothing away texture. Hair on arms disapear, fruits appear to be made of plastic, and skin... well, it's airbrushed to anormalcy. And white or black dots on green just disappear.If it catches up, I'm afraid texture will become a thing of the past on most images on the web.
migus: Nice shots, some have serious labor behind them..!My picks
3: Drama of the primeval forces that have shaped Earth and brought life upon it.5: Painting-like, albeit too cropped on the LHS (probably for a good reason).1: Street-like shot for the venue... the lions seem not to bother anymore about drones (noisy!), except the 2 cubs. Perhaps they see more drones daily than us :-)4: Weird background, is it a museum canvas shot - or why the shades?2: Interesting composition.
4: it is not shade as we usually think of it, it is the result of the birds changing position during a very long exposure. The flash captured them at a different place, but the time they spent in one place during the exposure blocked the light from the sky at that place which result in a darker area in the shape of the bird.
As the camera grows older, its close focus ability will decrease and it will eventually need close-up lenses.
munro harrap: I disagree with the assessment of 2004 (the 1Ds MkII) as THE moment. Great camera, but no. So far nobody has equalled the realism film brings to photography- not even the latest generation of 36MP sensors- except Hasselblad and medium format.
The colour is still inaccurate. It is VERY inaccurate. Its actually rubbish compared to what we see. All machines still oversaturate and all machines have LCD TV reds oranges and blues are always overdone.
Are manufacturers colour blind,since it is possible in post-production to get much more accurate colour.
If this can be done, then the corrections should be applied in camera- the sensors colour balance should be corrected in-camera. Only then can any real progress be made, but it is not even being attempted.
There is no such thing as "the realism film brings to photography". When selecting a film, you would select it for the color rendition, contrast and grain structure that you wanted to see in your pictures. (There were tens of color positive, negative as well as black and white films to chose from) And you would process it according to the little or huge tweaks you wanted to apply to what you already expected to get. (push or pull processing, cross-processing, or other variations) And if you shot c41, then the processor would mess everything at the printing stage, unless you asked the shop not to correct your prints, in which case you would have the "constant-from-one-print-to-the-next" standard colors cast of that particular machine on that day, on all of your prints.In other words, film was anything but realistic.
aandeg: Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji better start upping their game. Gorilla in the house.
The failures at DSLRs might likely be the failures at mirrorless.
@aandeg"They failed twice before, third time the charm?"
Care to explain how and when Panasonic and Fuji failed at DSLR?
Ruy Penalva: May be this new model can focus better than the old one. I had the old one and almost all of my shot (telephotos) were under-focused when 100% amplified.
Most of my shots were "almost" focused correctly when I had canon gear. Sometimes the focus was slightly behing target, sometimes slightly in front. Very rarely spot on.Now with Fuji, all of my shots are 100% perfectly focused on the target. I'm so never going back to Canon.
kakman: Am I the only one who thinks it's silly to have different types of card slots? This means to use both I need to have two types of cards - CF and SD - who wants to do that? Surely it makes more sense to have two slots the same. It just seems like a really weird 'feature'.
Other than that it looks good - but not greatly better or worse than lots of other cameras coming to market.
Having a body that big means you have a lot of internal space to keep prehistorical features like CF card interfaces. There used to be good reasons for having a CF card slot but they evaporated half a decade ago. Big companies love to hold on to their glorious past.
Kim Letkeman: Same sensor, same lens. Not much new in this model it seems where IQ is concerned. But I'm surprised at the struggle with tack sharpness in these images. The second statue is backfocused, none of the portraits have truly sharp eyes / eyebrows ... is it really that hard to lock focus on the subject with the X100T? Note: The baskets are nice, but that's rather a large target in a fairly flat plane :-)
The struggle with tack sharpness as you say is motion blur : the photographer was using a shutter speed slightly too slow for his capacity to remain still.
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.