lazy lightning: Hey where did my post go? I replied to a poster who had questioned the testing method of the X100S in relation to the Nikon A and Ricoh GR and thus the scoring between cameras reviewed.
My reply was something along the lines of; I noticed in the review that dpreview called the Nikon A and Ricoh GR "pretenders" and wondered if dpreview worked a sweet resellers deal with Fuji in order to sell the X100S in the dpreview GearShop.
I must have struck a nerve and considering the very real trust issues dpreview is having with members concerning the GearShop and it's relation to honest reviews going forward I shouldn't be surprised they chose to axe my post.
Hard to be objective, honest and transparent when chasing the almighty dollar.
I don't see how the new Gear Shop has anything to do with anything. You say that DPR can't be "honest and transparent chasing the almighty dollar" because of the Gear Shop? Funny thing is, DPR has been owned by Amazon since 2007. Guess they've just been fudging reviews to push sales there all along but no one ever noticed.
DotCom Editor: Wow, a "120-30mm" lens? Really?
The 120-300 f2.8 is in it's 4th generation at this point and has been available for 7-8 years. Where you been? All kidding aside, I have the OS version prior to this one and for the money this lens is a true sleeper. Even the newest version is less than half the cost of a Canon 300 f2.8L IS MkII. Mine isn't as tack sharp as the Canon at f2.8 but the rest of the range it's stellar. For 90% of the IQ, half the cost and 120-299mm that the prime can't do it's a steal.
I've got a bunch of images using the lens with a Canon 7D posted in my gallery if you want to check some shots.
The new version is pretty much equal optically but adds a focus limiter and the ability to customize settings using the new USB dock.
David Hardaway: Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.
Fuji has a great RAW processor for Xtans packaged with the camera. They gave all the needed algorithems to the other software manufacturers. You or anyone else choosing to use a subpar RAW processing program put out by another software company is Fuji's fault in what way?
People should try what is known to work correctly or quit complaining.
As far as video is concerned, Fuji ain't Canikon. They have obviously intended their cameras to be for still images with the option to shoot video. They aren't selling a $1300 camcorder. If I want to shoot video for personal use I'll buy an HD camcorder.
Leica just added video to the new "M" for the first time. How many Leica shooters do you think give two hoots about having video in that camera or said "Oh, I just bought a Leica M9 and I'm so upset because I can't shoot video".
Go play with your EOS-M or NEX for video and let the grown ups enjoy a "real" camera.
Who's buying third party software for what? Really, for Xtrans results? How about everyone else that shoots RAW on any camera that has a Bayer or Foveon sensor too? Or did Canon/Nikon and all the other manufacturers purchase Adobe, Apple and all the other manufacturers of RAW processing software so they are no longer third party?
Other than Iredient for Mac (which from what I've read trumps just about everything else available for processing X trans files) I've had good results with Silkypix that comes with the camera from Fuji. Never really used the others so I'm not all that concerned with how much better workflow is with the other options. Silypix works fine for me.
Maybe if more people would actually use Silkypix for it's intended purpose rather than complaining about how the workflow isn't as smooth as what they do importing into one program, then working the image in another then complain that the images look muddy or plastic there wouldn't be all this issue.
David Hardaway: I just reviewed the sample images that Barney took with the original x100. Night and day difference. The x100 images are very good and with good color and detail. X100s is clearly not an award winning camera so why is the dpreview gold being awarded to a jpg snapshot camera that is grossly overpriced?
All this negativity coming from someone who's back up camera is an EOS-M. The camera that's one of the biggest dogs of an ILC to come down the pike in years? The camera that Canon lowered the price to $299.00 with a lens? The camera that they're giving you the body for free when you buy the lens just to get it out of their inventory because it's so bad? That's what you use as your basis to slam the images and quality of the X100S? Really?
Are you just upset that the X100S is as good as it is and you are using an EOS-M or are you upset that you paid full price for your EOS-M before the bottom fell out on the price of a true "dog" of a camera. Sounds like equipment envy.
Anyone who has actually used an X100S at this point will know which portions of the review are acceptable as fact, which are nit picking issues and which (like using inferior RAW processors for your sample images) have no merit at all.
jaygeephoto: Not big enough. Put a lens shade on that bad boy. Then we'll talk.
What a name. How about: OMG TL WAFT? "Oh My 'Gosh' This Lens Weighs A 'Frickin' Ton"!
It will sell well especially since it will reportedly come with a bottle of ibuprofen and a discount coupon for a monopod.
Should be a seriously good lens for photographing a hockey game.
That lens can make your average elephant look small.
ScottD1964: It's actually not an overly large lens. Bout the same size as a 300 f2.8 prime. 6lbs give or take. Not super heavy but not light enough that I wouldn't use a monopod. I have the current version and love it. This one should be even better.
Canon did an amazing job reducing the weight on the updates of the new super teles (300-600). That being said I completely agree with you Steve. I'm not one to play hero and hand hold a lens of this size for any significant period of time. No IS in the world can correct poor images due to arm fatigue. A monopod is worth every penny in these cases.
Spectro: If this was under 2k, I would be all over this lens. Sigma has been really impressive, hope the qc improve. Got 2 sigma, got some af issues sometimes.
Currently B&H is listing the new lens at a Pre-order price of $3599 and the current version at $2799. I paid $3199 for mine. Less than half the cost of the canon 300 prime and I'd say about 90-95% as good IQ wise.
Oh, and as far as shooting hockey. Not great at ice level. Holes in the boards are too small and the lens is too big (70-200 works much better) but worked great for me from above ice with a Canon 7D for the NHL shooting I did this season. FOV of a 192-480 on the APS-C sensor bodies.
It's actually not an overly large lens. Bout the same size as a 300 f2.8 prime. 6lbs give or take. Not super heavy but not light enough that I wouldn't use a monopod. I have the current version and love it. This one should be even better.