Asylum Photo: Face detect and subject tracking autofocusImproved focus control in movie mode (fixed/continuous/manual)
Hopefully these come to the XP1 and XE1...
I would certainly hope so, but it could be that these features won't work (well) with the old processor. Let's see.
joesuburb: I don't have a, "trained eye" and I'm not a professional. Also as a disclaimer, I do own an OM-D, so maybe I'm just psychologically tricking myself.
But, I keep hearing in professional reviews that the Fuji has the best image quality in it's market. But when I look at the OM-D comparison under raw, I see better colors, more detail and an overall better image up to ISO 800. Then above ISO 800 it seems like the Fuji doesnt resolve anymore detail and just has NR applied that would equal out with applying NR on the OM-D.
Am I crazy or just wrong?
@ vesa1tahti: 1. Since the OP is looking at the RAW comparison, in-camera processing is taken out of the equation. Thus, any NR that the camera might apply doesn't show up. 2. I think it's been hammered home by now that LR processing by DPR uses default parameters, which aren't optimal for the Fuji files. You have to compare peak IQ, not suboptimal processing. Default parameters are fine for Bayer cameras, but aren't optimal yet for X-Trans files.
@joesuburb: I think you find that most reviews say that the IQ of ooc-JPEGs is the best that's currently available in this class, not that the IQ per se is best. Fuji has a particularly good JPEG engine that will be sufficient for a lot of people.
joe6pack: "By our tests, the X-E1's measured sensitivities are about 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower than marked" - isn't that cheating?
There isn't an agreed upon standard. Also, a lot of other camera makers over-state their ISOs.
wildkat2: If nothing else comes out of all of this I hope DPR takes away a few things:
1 - we read the reviews2 - we read them carefully3 - we remember what was said previously4 - we WANT reviews to be comparable across brands and time5 - we CARE about the awards6 - we might disagree with the reviews but they are better across the board than anyone else
and finally.....there is no way to make us all happy
Forget comparisons across brands, cameras, and time. Think about it for a moment what it would entail, and you'll give up pretty quickly.
mumintroll: Fuji X-E1 not bad. But personally I think much better IQ have Sigmas DP1,DP2,DP3. I would really like to compare them in Raw.For studio, where is lot of light, for landscapers are Sigmas the best choice. I just regret, that we will never see review of those cameras here.
The Sigmas have better IQ at low ISO only, as you alluded to. At higher ISO they fall apart quite quickly. However, if base ISO is what you're interested in, then the Sigmas are unbeatable.
zos xavius: This review seems to be stacked in fuji's favor, though I realize it may be unintentional. I do read some of these reviews pretty thoroughly and this was one of them. A few things of note. Since they are lying and overstating iso, it would be valid to compare these sensors at true iso value. I'm guessing 3200 is more like 2000. That's a pretty big difference. 6400 is probably more like 3200 on the other cameras and I'm thinking it might not look so much better if all things were equal here. Also the foreground part of the studio shot is much closer in the xe-1 shot. Was the 35 used vs 50s on the k-01 and nex-7? It is either different focal lengths and perspective or the studio shot was moved at some point. My point is that it makes many of the detail parts of the shot look better because they are taking up more of the frame. I think it is is intriguing but its hard to make apples to apples comparisons when things are different. I'm always interested in noise and resolution first.
1. I'm critical of the ISO thing myself (I have an X-E1), but it's actually not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Measuring 'true' ISOs is practically impossible anyway (DxO comes closest to a decent approach, but they won't review the X-Trans cameras as they aren't compatible with the DxO test scheme that is only useful for Bayer sensors). I also have a D7000, and when setting common focal lengths and apertures the shutter speeds on the D7000 to give an image with equal brightness are actually slower than what the X-E1 choses.
2. Yes, indeed, different focal lengths were used. It's been historically difficult, if not impossible to really compare apples to apples with any camera review. If the reviews got you intrigued about a camera, there isn't really anything better than to get a hold of one and putting it through its paces.
Danguyfuji: Most of these comments are mostly from people that just don't get it. Raw files are NOT supposed to be finished when they come right from camera. Thats the point. You make them in raw converter. Sharpnes on all files are minimum you have to add it. I will rather have my file in raw a bit smooth, than over sharpened raw files like the ones we see from most of the other cameras. You can ad sharpnes, not remove it! It seems like most of the people on these comments have a lot of gear. They have nikon canon sony olympus pentax fuji. They know eksakly which one is better than the other, because they have all these cameras to compare. I would like to have that much money. I work with canon-nikon-fuji files on a daily basis, and there is no doubt, that when it comes to IQ the fuji is excelent! Fast, no. Weather seal, no.Lot of lenses, no. At these point nikon and canon are better. In my case, for my work, IQ is no 1 and I will live with the bad things.You can't find one camera that has it all
Sharpness is a characteristic of detail in a photograph, but it's not equivalent to detail. If the details are clear, then there is high sharpness. If the same details are washed out a bit but the information content is still the same, then sharpness is reduced. Sharpness is largely independent of detail (in a photograph, and that's what we are talking about). Sharpness just tells us how we perceive detail. A photo could actually be less sharp than another one but still contain more information.
Syktasy: Why on the same ISO (6400) and the same aperture (F8) every camera has time shorter than 1/1600 and on Fuji is 1/1000? I don't like this. I have to increase ISO to have the same time like on other camera? ISO is not a standard?
No, ISO is not standardized. BTW, the Fujis aren't worse in this respect than many other cameras that also oversell ISO. If you have more than one camera system, then you may work out the relationship from one to the other. If not, just go take pictures and enjoy.
zos xavius: This is a fascinating review. I've pixel peeped extensively on this one. What's up with the k-01? The AA filter looks week to the point where I'm seeing false detail, but yet subtle details are being smoothed. Yeah I realize that at high ISO pentax smooths noise. This is more aggresive than my k-5.
The k-01 resolves more than the fuji. (raw test might not be best here) The NEX at base iso outresolves all of them and shows outstanding detail, but quickly falls apart above ISO 1000. With careful noise reduction it may still edge out the K-01, but the color noise is bothersome and not the kind of noise I like to see. The fuji does very well with high iso though and IMO looks better/cleaner/etc at 6400 than any of them, but at the same time with a loss of detail that is very subtle and nothing like the smearing you see with bayer pattern sensors and hardware noise reduction.Fuji has done something really different here. It will be interesting to see how they can develop it further.
1. ACR: it's pretty much there. There are some issues with certain scenes, but they also occur on Bayer sensors. Consider the raw processing issue to be solved.
2. Although the DR expansion modes do work sometimes, they aren't useful if one wants to get the best possible exposure. Underexposing and raising ISO don't increase dynamic range. In fact, they decrease it, so I generally stay away from it. Instead, shoot raw. For high-DR scenes, nothing beats processing raws in an external processor. That applies to pretty much any camera.
3systermuser: >it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker.
no longer coveted gold award I think , recently all your reviewed cameras getting gold or at least silver , why is that?
Yes, they are all good cameras. These are exciting times for photographers. Besides, DPR judges cameras against their intended target group (i.e., expectations), so two cameras that are vastly different in their feature set can still both have the same overall score.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.
Whether it's described in detail at DPR or not, I consider that particular test to be a flaw in their review process. Or let's call it a 'suboptimal approach'. Judging IQ based on default settings of a software that may or may not adequately support a given camera is of little value, except to those who apply default values. IMHO, IQ should be judged based on best achievable IQ, so that anyone can see what's possible. The way DPR executes the test, it often says more about the software used than about the camera.
Amateurbob: To determine picture quality the first places I look are dynamic range and sample gallery. The sample gallery confirms the results of the dynamic range comparisons – the X-E1 set at DR 100 cannot match my Nex C3. Why was picture DSCF9046 not taken at DR 200 and DR 400 so one can get an idea of what the camera can do. Why not set the camera at DR 200? Is there some disadvantage in doing so? It is stated that DR200 is like underexposing a stop to retain highlights then adjusting the brightness afterwards, and DR400 is like underexposing by two stops and adjusting further. How does that increase dynamic range? It was shown that it increased dynamic range. If one underexposes the highlights they also underexpose the shadows. What is the dynamic range of a sensor?
That's bothered me as well for a while now. What you are looking at in that section of the review is the application of a tone curve. Of course the DR range of a sensor cannot be changed by deliberately underexposing a shot or processing an image. Besides the sensor doesn't have a DR of >13EV as suggested by the DR400 curve. DPReviews should make that more clear.@gsum: Since the encoded data aren't linear, the DR of a JPEG is higher than 8 stops, somewhere around 11 stops. As a consequence, though, some region(s) are compressed somewhat. The Fuji DR expansion functionality compresses the midrange for a smoother roll-off at the extremes.
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.
I asked about the crashing in the Fuji forum as I hadn't experienced it on my X-E1. There weren't any crashes reported by others. And we are a quite critical bunch and aren't bashful about our cameras. Perhaps there was something wrong with the specimen DPR had. Besides, none of the myriad of other reviews reported any crashes, AFAIK. Don't read just this review; read them all, and you'll get a much more complete picture as things tend to even out and become more unbiased across many reviews.
Woohoo, my X-E1 got a Gold Award. Man, awesome. I was worried for a while, but now I feel so much better about my purchase. It's some money after all. Cool! I just looked at some of my pictures again, and yeah, they do look a lot less noisy and more detailed than anything else, now that I know that they are. Happy camper here!
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.
External RAW processing currently is as good as the in-camera processing in terms of IQ, but much more flexible than the in-camera processing. No big problems here anymore, but it's been a shaky few months for RAW shooters.
Marty4650: "despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.
Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.
I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.
As an owner of the X-E1, I asked other owners whether they ever observed any crashes. I think there wasn't a single one. DPR must have had a bad specimen. Crashes certainly isn't a hallmark of the X-E1. Whenever there is something like this mentioned, it is wise to follow up and see if it's a one-off thing or a common occurrence. None of the other big reviews has mentioned crashes either.
'sharpness = detail' must be one of the top-ten myths.
Mike Sandman: I don't understand why a sensor that does not have a Bayer array and therefore does not need an anti-aliasing filter generates raw files that are less than sharp. I though the whole point of Fuji's sensor was to improve resolution (which is connected to sharpness, at least in my mind).
Is there less of a link between perceived sharpness and resolution than I think?
Perhaps someone who's able to provide a technical explanation would weigh in here??
I'm repeating myself here, and probably a few more times as I go down the list. The softness is due to the software setting used. It's not an intrinsic property of the sensor. At least not to the extent visible in the review's images. I would recommend downloading the raw files and playing with them yourself.
Well, it is unwise to write something off based on a flawed review. Flawed in this particular aspect, not the whole review overall. There is no blurriness in the images from the X-Trans. Like Asylum Photo said above, it's a simple software setting. You should really download the RAW files and mess with them yourself, instead of taking stuff that's written at face value.
spidermoon: But how it compare against the Fuji RAW converter or the in camera conversion ?
I beg to differ. RFC is an excellent piece of software. The results are anything but awful.