Sorry to be this negative about this company,But they sure delivered a whole lot of nothing here.
..its tweaked way that most people wouldnt maybe describe Fuji colors as "accurate", but they will describe them as nice.
Its much like Velvia, it isnt exactly color accurate film, but colors it produce are considered as nice.. (unless you shoot portraits with it :D).
People mostly buy Fuji X cameras cause..
1) they look retro and great2) as long as you shoot JPGs, they pretty much work, its RAWs where pain starts..3) very decent lens (albeit "fixed" via built-in SW corrections)4) X-T1 has very good EVF5) very nice colors in those JPGs
And novelty/style factor.. as usually.
But X-trans? Thats just something you must live with, if you want to use it.. it isnt bonus, its problem and hinderance. Output could be way better if they left it..
To be precise, X-trans is just name for specific CFA arrangement. As is Bayer. Arrangement of individual color filters over cells dont have much to do with quality of such filters. Sure, thanks to X-trans, Fuji looses some color resolution (about same as it "gained" due lack of AA :D ). Most people wont notice tho.. unless its green forest.
But apart that, how is CFA arranged has nothing to do with how good colors will be. It depends on CFA quality. Which actually isnt particulary high in Fuji camera, but..
Mateus1: X-A2 specification: "Rangefinder-style mirrorless". Where is VF? :)
Well, Panny GX7 is fitting "RF-style mirrorless". Including EVF in proper place. :)
This doesnt, its just soap box.
And of course I have plenty of Fuji RAWs, suprisingly I even own Fuji camera (only its not crappy X-trans one).
X-trans is pointless, cause all things it was supposed to eliminate are simply eliminated by higher pixel count (NX1). And only thing it caused is problems for both RAW converter programmers and end-users in near infinite hunt for better demosaicing. And as bonus, its camera you dont want near forests or areas with too much greens in it.
Grats to that, Im sure everyone wanted camera which dictates you "what you shouldnt take picture of" cause it cant handle something so primitive as few greens in picture. :D
I seriously wonder what Fuji fans are drinking or smoking, or why they even continue in this futile fight with truth. Fuji made flop with X-trans. Deal with it. Denial wont make it better, it will make it only worse.. Force Fuji to produce something closer to "normal" for once..
1) it doesnt have lower color noise - try proper demosaicing with NR off (by that I mean 3-pass), result is sharp images with about as much noise as any 16 mpix from Sony - actually X-A1 is better in this..
2) X-trans and moiré.. haha, no, it usually doesnt create moiré patterns where Bayer does, but it creates those patterns exactly where you wouldnt expect them (thin branches at distance and such, since X-trans demosaicing is sorta skipping 1-2 pix, it handles really poorly 1 pix details, especially lines)
3) Um, so you have less real resolution (due how X-trans CFA is arranged) and you expect to get more real resolution than Bayer? :D Thats false too, for now, most resolution is in 16 mpix from Leica T (cause its Bayer and doesnt have AA). But given existence of NX1, its pointless.. Fuji cant even begin to touch that resolution..
4) only positive in Fuji cameras are colors, but that doesnt have anything to do with X-trans and everything to do with CFA and color profiles..
kadardr: Fujifilm X-A1/A2 with a Zeiss Touit lens is as good as a Leica X. With a kit lens its like an X Vario. May be better. But no one buys Leica for image quality so whatever.
Well, thing is every Fuji lens is "so good" cause its cooked in RAW. :) Check some of them without corrections and it gets pretty ugly.
To be fair, Leica T lens are exactly the same.. Tho at least their "kit" lens has a bit less CA (but it fringes a bit) than Fuji counterpart. Distortion is about same..
Fuji is a bit like Apple, they managed to convince their followers that princesses dont pee. But obviously its just the same as Apple, its hidden but still there..
As far as controls go. Leica T is different to everything, maybe Galaxy NX is somewhat similar. Imagine something like really good smartphone with touchscreen which is in same time a camera. Simple easy to use menus. Thats whats Leica T. Ultra-modern or even futuristic are key words for it.
Might be tad bit too modern to some..
Samsung has 28 mpix APS-C which is far from noisy..
Tho 16 mpix for APS-C is pretty much ok. Mpix hunt is good only to some degree..
X-trans is failed tech, thats all.. there is absolutely zero benefit in it. Every X-trans camera would be better as regular Bayer one. X-trans is only pain and no gain for users.. or anyone in fact.
Leica T would just wipe floor with this, IQ wise. Control-wise too..
X Vario is fixed lens large sensor compact camera, not directly comparable. Leica T is same kind as X-A1/A2.
But if Leica really wants T to work, they should make some lens fast..
It will surpass more expensive bodies anyway, cause its "trouble-free" Bayer matrix. Not that horrible good-for-nothing X-trans.
prossi: It's too late for canon&nikon to do a resonably good job with mirrorless as Sony, Samsung,Fuji and Oly/Panasonic capture more and more DP market share. Why would they launch a product that fights with the bread&butter DLSR line?
And as far as I can tell, it worked well for Apple. Tho that was era of Jobs, future of Apple is pretty foggy now..
Mirrorless wont repeat history of APS format simply cause, there are no flaws like in APS format.
What mirrorless today miss? dSLR quality AF. And thats all.. Since a lot of photographers actually dont need this (you need AF of that kind for sports/events .. sometimes wildlife, depends what kind of wildlife you shoot). Rest? No need for such quality of AF, but need for high image quality and a lot of times for portability.
dSLR will last that long as long will mirrorless have their "baby issues". Which now is only matter of time..
Shiranai: They want to rival $5000 DSLRs? Well thats a lot of confidence putting their small APS-C against fullframe. Especially considering their less than optimal lens-range which still lacks a 50mm 1.4 or a 300mm zoom.
And yes, there is something that DSLRs do better - its that their viewfinder has no lag at all. Because even if its 5 milliseconds it can be the moment you miss.And talking about small sized, the NX1 isn't really small sized, they intentionally made it this big to attract DSLR owners, so thats complete marketing-bull.
50/1.4 for APS-C? Ehm.. why? 30/2 works more than fine..
vscd: ...sitting for hours in the snow, waiting for a Bird to sit down 50 metres away from my 400 f2.8 will teach you the disadvantages of an EVF/Mirrorless concept (batteries changing every 20 minutes? Heating up the sensor...).
I could tell him more disadvantages, but he's stuck on his product and has to promote it.
I saw some time ago pics from some NX camera (was NX200 I think) taken in temps of -30°C and it didnt seem he had much battery issue.. Doubt that changed. If I look on NX1, it seems that either they hired some Pentax designers/engineers or simply learned a lot from their joint venture.
Unless they plan to end Kodak way (Meh, digital.. that will blow over..). They should prepare to move at least half of their profits to mirrorless, while they can (its probably too late now anyway).
Canon today seems fine, even great, from profit side of things.. but will that last as mirrorless will go up and dSLR down? History is full of cases where "It cant fail/go down." And sometimes you need just to miss big enough iceberg to go down..
That iceberg will be mirrorless for some I think..
Anyway, it was always like this. Adapt or die.
iAPX: NX1 with 16-50 f/2.8 is $3000 here in Canada (approximatively), and competing with less-expensive APS-C offers from Canon and Nikon, in fact it's way more expansive than a Sony a7 with a basic 28-70mm ($2000 here).
I do doubt that the 28MP of sensor resolution could be exploited in real world due to lens limitations (maybe there will one exception but in APS-C many lenses doesn't seem to resolve more than what is necessary for a 16MP sensor!).
Hope to see the DPReview full test to see how it goes, because the price and choice of lenses are targeted at wealgthy "amateur" or pro looking for an APS-C body. It's ambitious, maybe too much?
Some Sony lens are fine, some bit less.. in Samsung world, its that only very few lens are "not worth it". Just, kinda nobody notice.. apart users.
I checked how NX1 RAW files look, and .. um they are actually best I saw from APS-C so far. Rivaling certain FF sensors too..
Would love if Samsung made FF (or bigger).
ThePhilips: IMO Samsung needs:
1. NX300 with EVF. I might have bought it. Alas.
2. Pay Sigma and Tamron to make lenses for NX. Single vendor systems are too risky and is a competitive disadvantage in the eyes of the users.
Also. I assume their camera division loses money. IMO they should double down on it, and make NX system truly open for both lens and camera manufacturers.
Ah, true.. well, I wouldnt mind if it was working as Sony system does either. Tho it would be pretty interesting to see other cameras used with NX lens (some are really good).
I would prefer if NX was open system like NEX E-mount. Sony didnt want to try too hard with lenses for their systems and competition managed to produce rather nice things (Sigma, Zeiss).
NX system is rather complete (lacks fast telephoto zooms/primes), but a bit of options wouldnt hurt. Every other mirrorless has rather big selection of more or less alternative options.
Tho NX1 seems pretty amazing, except its too much for almost any lens..
I think actually sooner.. About half time, or even year.
ttran88: Hope this isn't it for 2015, really want to use limited lenses on full frame with AF. They have the lenses but why not the camera for it. My ideal pentax full frame camera that won't cannibalize their 645Z line, 16mp with no AA filter doesn't have to have video. They have so many great lenses for full frame why not release one.
Since there was for example 14 mpix with no AA on FF, it isnt that horrible idea (far less moiré issues than one would expect). But its completely unnecessary these days, when getting 36 mpix FF isnt problem. And Sony pumps out a lot of these..
zakaria: As the 645z price is nearly the top full frame frome canikon..so no pentax fullframe.645z is pentax full frame.
Yep, and 6x7 and 6x8 etc. 6x7 would be particulary nice in digital as its "true" MF.
marc petzold: Dear RICOH, you badly missed the point - we, the Users don't need especially a very slow 18-50mm f/4-5.6 zoom, especially not colappsile - if i need something way handy, i take a DSLM mirrorless anytime with me, over a DSLR, when space is an issue. But a traditional DSLR-styled body, with small lenses, especially F4 starting range....for whom is it made for? Take a NX3000 for instance with the PZ 16-50, and you do have a very nice Zoom Range from 24.5-83mm, starting at F3.5 to F5.6. Or any small NEX 3N to NEX-5N,R,T or A5x00 Series (Alpha) with the matching 16-50/3.5-5.6 PZ (the IQ is worse than the Samsung equivalent).
Hm, like if that f3.5 is more usable with those zooms than f4. Usually they become "sorta okay" at f8.