the subject is lost in all that clutter and the light coloured hair/reed above its head is shameful... it just doesn't work also the highlights is the background make this dreadful
very blurred and the eyes are again dead as you need a tutorial on using fill in flash or a reflective foil or white board to make this photo work. her nose isnt flattered by the use of the 50mm lens a 90mm would have been far superior.The photo of the girl in the doorway you commented on recently could aspire you if you gave your photography a little more thought.... maybe
use an aperture that blurs the background as this is awful but could be redeemed with a little fill in flash to show this girl isnt dead as it would bring those eyes alive. your work is poor with no attention to detail. The shoulder skin distracts and the right arm just isnt helping
RichardAB: It's concerning that in dpreview's "Buyer's Guide: Enthusiast raw-shooting compact cameras" of December 15, 2011 in the recommendations section it singled out the Fujifilm X10 for its 'image quality'.
I know the Nikon P7100 well, having used it for 7 months so left comments about mistakes in their review of that camera.
I feel particular sympathy for anyone who purchased an X10 on the basis of dpreview's image quality recommendation, having put their trust in dpreview, and wonder if dpreview feels any responsibility?
Why should DPReview have any responsibility at all to you or anyone else. Its their opinion only and your not paying for that are you and your not entering into any contractual obligation on either side. Get real its only photos your taking... and an X10 is for no money at all is it?
The X-series has been a complete disaster.
Its great that your able to post comments for free but your missing the whole point. Its non of your business what Fuji do - and your not their customer are you? Your at best the customer of the retailer. The X100 is a stunning ground breaking camera and your peers like Ken Rockwell demonstrate this. Try to be rational and constructive before you post as its such a good free resource here. If you need help or advice pose a question as there are far better folk here than you that can give you the correct advice. Post some photos and if they are OK we can elevate you position on DPReview and take you more seriously than a one trick pony at the moment....
doctorbza: What a pathetic and embarrassing response from the majority of posters. I truly wonder if most of the trolls even bothered to do anything besides open the pics linked above. Did you even watch the video? Did you see the post-production work done on the landscape shots? Did you read anything on the blogs of the photographers? Did you look at any of their work before dragging their names through the mud?
While the band of fools creates a racket here, real photographers are patiently taking in details about this camera bit by bit, determining whether or not this tool will be a worthwhile addition to their workflow.
A photographers job is to create interesting, engaging work that communicates something to the viewer, and use the most appropriate tools available to do so. All the medium format digital backs in the world won't save you if your entire portfolio is comprised of shots of brick walls that rely on the tool to make the image a work of art.
If your all unhappy with the photographers work then dont pay them any of your money... but hey they are not asking you to are they? Its free, free yes free. Dont buy the camera as well as you dont need it either and if you did it will upset you too as it cannot take the photos you want but you know that no camera can either. Oh and if you own a computer you need virus protection. Hey and thats free from AVG to. Its a win win everytime for you!
M1963: I had the chance to see the photos taken by the australian photographers before they were published here at dpreview, which probably spared my computer from viruses and a thorough scan. Said photos are no big deal, as many commenters pointed out, but I think there is an explanation for this: the photographers had little time to use the camera. I know a portuguese photographer who maintains a photo website (www.fotodigital-online.com), who was lent an X-Pro1. He only had five minutes - yes, you read that right: five minutes! - to get accustomed to the camera and take some photos. Clearly it was not enough. In either cases image quality seems OK, but nothing to write home about. We'll have to wait for more conclusive images to appear before we can judge what this camera can do.
Have another look and consider the results the camera can achieve in low light as this is the point your missing. A dull flat scene you say and your correct but the finished result is special. Dont think that the shots you drool over elsewhere were not selected from 300 plus images then retouched to present the staged ones you compare these to. This photographer can do that as good as the best. Have a think before you embarrass yourself in future...
Shomari: I usually don't like to say anything negative, however Fuji didn't need to hire two professionals to take the photos shown here. If they're trying to get me to buy the Fuji Pro then they're off to a poor start. Fuji, why are you rushing to the market, instill confidence in your product don't continue to cast doubt on it.I really can't believe everyone involved in this production posted these pics and that video..... Regards,
Your not seeing the wood for the trees are you. Chocolate box staged tripod assisted pictures are maybe for you then? ISO, handheld shots, real people, low light, focus and well I'm losing the will to live attempting to argue your comments......
Sam Carriere: This website's silence on these issues does immeasurable harm to its credibility. DPreview has been my barometer for things photographic pretty well since it was launched. From now on, I am looking elsewhere.
Thats great but I would be interested as to why your telling us your off? If you had to pay to read the content you could just stop subscribing. As it is it appears your just a drama queen thats unhappy your not getting your own way... But why should you, what rights do you have... you have a choice... so bye, bye
keepreal: It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.
I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)
Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.
It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.
Its great your able to have a rant and create a bit of a fuss. DPRevew like you has choices to make and you may not agree with theirs but as your not their focus of attention I will help and listen to you.... Agh, do you feel better now. The sample images illustrate that the ISO either at 100 or 400 makes little difference in this particular scence and I enjoy the study and it was FREE!