gerard boulanger: Hmm..2 stops of DR less than X-Pro 1...
No, it just uses a higher-contrast tone curve in the shadow regions.
The underlying DR of the sensor is the same, it's just that Fujifilm has chosen to make its default Film Simulation 'punchier.'
If you like the smoother shadow response, you can use the Pro Neg. Std Film Simulation or shoot Raw (as explained in the review).
bluevellet: We can no longer compare the scoring with other cameras?
This should now be fixed. Sorry.
Krich13: Does this camera allow Exposure Compensation in Auto-ISO mode in the Manual regime (user-selected shutter speed and aperture)? Does it allow shot deletion at any level of magnification (X-E1 didn't)?
@Krich13 - The camera does not honour the Exposure Comp. dial when in Manual with Auto ISO.
Pressing the delete button when zoomed-in will jump back out and check whether you're trying to delete just that or all images.
SharkWeek: Are the low ISOs overstated or just the high ISOs?
All the ISOs are less sensitive than you'd expect.
chocobanana: @DPreview test crew,
Did you use ACR 8.4 for the test RAW conversions? If yes, did you see any improvements in conversion quality from previous versions?
If you look at our test scene, the X-E2's shots were processed with ACR 8.3, the X-T1's were processed with 8.4 rc. If you see any huge differences, we'll reprocess. My understanding was that the main change with 8.4 was the addition of 'Film Simulation' simulations.
Don Karner: So, is everybody a sports shooter now?
In what sense?
Or was this intended as a reply to Jimmy jang Boo? (If so, may I commend the 'Reply' button to you?)
Dimit: I've played with it for an hour or something..it's a fine camera with 2014 standards BUT someone has to say this (since DPR suprisingly doesn't admit):BUILD QUALITY IS AND FEELS CHEAP!...sorry guys,better wait for a couple of years to get a descent car build-wise than a chevy right now!!!
I disagree with you on that. The X-A1 and X-M1 feel a bit flimsy 'round the edges but I wouldn't say the same of the X-E2.
rhlpetrus: For some reason I can't see any of the test images in the DR or RAW conversion comparison pages.
Try again now. It appears a process I thought was now redundant is still necessary.
helltormentor: DP reviewers, Can you please tell us why you insist on converting X-Trans RAW files by ACR? It might be a good converter for other RAW files but, certainly, it is not for X-Trans files. I, myself, am very thankful for all the efforts that you put into shedding light on camera's capabilities but the truth is, when it comes to Fuji cameras, your evaluation cannot help photographers to make their minds because ACR outputs leave a lot to be desired. I am well aware that there is always a big inertia against changes but if conservativeness was the way to choose, we still had to shoot with pinhole cameras. If you don't have to stick to ACR for commercial reasons, please switch to a better RAW converter for X-Trans files. Otherwise, save your time and energy for reviewing cameras with conventional Bayer sensors since your reviews on them are truly informative.
@helltormentor - I didn't *anywhere* imply that our system is 'fine.' The phrase 'This is the most meaningful and least bad compromise.' states quite the opposite.
However, your analogy is flawed. It would be fairer to say that we make all contenders play a simple buy very popular game (say football/soccer), where some are slightly less familiar with the rules than others.
Your suggestion involves having to watch every contender play a range of sports, then show them playing the one we decide they're best at.
Everybody playing football pretty reasonably is more readily comprehensible than watching a field on which the referee has decided some players should play football, others should play grid iron, while others play a mixture of rugby league, rugby union and Aussie rules.
plasnu: In RAW, Magenta is extremely strange, why?
@Just a Photographer
We *did* use the ACR8.4 beta - it's the only version of ACR to support the X-T1.
peevee1: DPR wrote: "compare the E-M10 to a growing list of cameras in our new studio test scene. "
Your comparison is useless, for ISO 25,600 you use f/5.6 1/2500s on E-M10 and f/5.6 1/5000s on E-M1. Whole stop difference in exposure!
The E-M10 can't shoot at 1/5000th, so we had to reduce the lighting by 1EV.
rocklobster: It's hugely dissappointing to keep hearing about how complex it is to enable the SCP or to change any other configuration parameters. Anybody who has owened a recent Olympus camera will find it quickly and for anyone else there are the forums. This is not a deal breaker by any stretch...
By default you get the screen mode version of SCP - an interactive panel *instead* of live view. Switch to live view and pressing the 'info' button brings up the early-90s-compact-camera-style interface.
Engaging SCP as the main means of changing settings is an awkward affair. We have to review for people who aren't existing Olympus owners. Our point is that the E-M10 can be set up to be one of the engaging cameras in its class, for keen photographers, but if you pick it up in a camera store, you may not realise this.
Ultimately, though, any converter we choose (or any combination of converters), will be open to just as must criticism. This is the most meaningful and least bad compromise.
And the point you've ignored entirely is that we provide the files to allow everyone to draw their own conclusions, based on their own workflows.
@Michael Berg - Every survey I've ever seen (including one we conducted a few years back) put ACR out in front my a country mile. I've seen no data to suggest this has subsequently changed.
@helltormentor - For a start, I disagree that ACR is a long way off other converters, when it comes to X-Trans. Its initial attempts were a bit disappointing, but I think we've re-processed all the Raw files of X-Trans cameras with one of the more recent updates (I forget which, and when).
What we're doing is entirely consistent, regardless of whether you consider it fair. As soon as we change to an 'optimal' converter for one camera, we have to assess and test all cameras with a range of converters, to check that we're not disadvantaging them (an essentially endless task).
Yes, our approach presents problems for cameras that aren't supported by ACR at all (our old scene allowed us to isolate files, so that they could only be displayed on pages that explained their inconsistency).
@helltormentor - there are three reasons we use ACR to process all the cameras in our test scene:
1) Consistency - If we start cherry-picking converters for each camera, then the scenes would be less comparable and we'd have even more complaints that we've chosen the 'wrong' one or used the 'wrong; settings. There is no 'right' way of doing this, so we have to choose one way and be consistent with it.
2) Timeliness - Adobe has been very good at providing support soon after launches, which is essential for us to be able to start work on reviews.
3) Relevance - The ACR engine (through Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom) is by far the most-used third-party Raw converter and it is central to many people's workflows. A camera's performance in ACR gives those people an indication of the results they may get.
Ultimately, we can't provide everyone with what they think is their optimal process, so we always provide the Raw files so they can see for themselves.
RichRMA: Someone needs to get a "universal lens" and shoot all the cameras in manual mode to really establish their real ISO speeds. What good is "claiming" 3200 ISO on one camera when it gives results like 1600 or 1200 on another, in-terms of illumination? This can negate whatever claim to "low-noise" a camera may have.
We do just that at the top of the Noise page of each review.
gerard boulanger: A teasing before a full review Friday?
Probably not Friday, but the review is progressing well.
Heaven is for real: This article was published today so why the comments are 1 week old or so?
The article extends our existing content, so the comments were made on that original content.
Horshack: hmm, SRAW on the 16MP D4s but not the 36MP D800.
The bullet-point list on page 1.
Terry Breedlove: Fuji nor Sony have anything even close to this.
In the sense that they don't even try to compete in this sphere?
Noticeably BMW doesn't make anything as fast as Mercedes' F1 car. Does that mean BMWs are suddenly rubbish?