MJJSevilla: I had a Hasselblad X-pan. A great camera which I sold with great reluctance. Obviously, it wasn´t a real Hasselblad either but they didn´t mark it up to a ridculous price that insulted the customer and it was a good, functional product that I loved using.
Friends of mine who were into photography were always impressed by it. Those who weren´t, couldn´t have cared less and some even assumed it was some cheap Chinese knock off brand because it wasn´t a Nikon or a Canon or something they´d heard of....This was H´s problem I think. It´s a brand that appeals to photographers, not to the general public (let´s include the mega rich here for once, if only in the sense that they aren´t usually photographers). It has a certain cache but among people who know what they´re doing and people who know about photography aren´t going to be an obscenely expensive Sony. A leica maybe, if they´ve got the cash, but not that.
Also Leica don´t look hideously tacky. I wouldn´t buy a Leica either but at least if I did, I woudn´t be ashamed to be seen with it in public.
I had a Hasselblad X-pan. A great camera which I sold with great reluctance. Obviously, it wasn´t a real Hasselblad either but they didn´t mark it up to a ridculous price that insulted the customer and it was a good, functional product that I loved using.
Of course bigger sensors are better than smaller ones. But the question is to what extent it matters.
I use a Fuji X Pro 1. I usually shoot landscapes (in the broadest possible sense) and generally print at 12x18inches. I rarely shoot at high ISO because for night scenes I prefer longer exposures and tripods - in fact I usually bang on an ND filter to get longer exposures anyway. I mostly shoot MF and while I do sometimes use limited DoF, I find fast primes give me enough blur. So most of my photography falls within the zone where the advantages of FF are not really required.
There´ve been a handful of situations where FF would have been useful. Bright sunrises against dark lava fields (dynamic range), night time Semana Santa procesions (freezing motion , DoF higher ISO than I felt comfortable with). Against that I often do long hikes where an equivalent FF kit would kill me and I´m 30 something and fit.
For me APS mirrorless was the best fit but it´s horses/courses.
armandino: wow, pretty aggressive noise reduction even at 200 iso... mushy pics
The default settings for noise reduction in jpgs are too high which is easily remedied by changing them to -2. Similarly the default sharpening settings in ACR are too low. Taken together this leads to a lot of these "mushy pics", "Fuji apply NR to RAW" comments when the fact is it really isn´t a problem, merely a question of changing settings in the menus. Like any camera. really.
gunkan: I think using adapted Canon 50mm 1.4 FD or Nikon 50mm 1.4 AI lens has better price/quality if you don't mind manual focusing.
1.2 or 1.4 primes for fuji, yes! but they are priced as full frame lens that they are not.
APS-C = smaller and cheaper.
Except price is also based on the cost of R&D and setting up a production line divided by expected sales - the lower volume of Fuji sales means more expensive lenses and also on the quality of the product. Price isn´t just a function of size and the quantity of materials used. In any case, Fuji X lenses are actually often cheaper than equivalent Canon/Nikon lenses of similar quality, though I´m sure counterexamples also exist.
Ijuf Nonac: This is an excellent camera for everybody who want trees to look like some funny computer generated things (or maybe a painting?).
Take a look at this image.....http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/samples/lmo/DSCF3822.jpg
It certanly looks like a 'beautiful' painting and not something comming from a brand new camera. When this image is viewed at 100%, everything becomes a complete mess!!
What an original comment. Ive never heard that one befor3. Except curiously none of my foliage shots, processed with Capture One, look like that. It's not exactly like this hasnt been discussed ad nausuem is it. Adobe processed files with trees look bad. Also soft because the default sharpening settings are wrong. Use another converter, no problem, if you dont want to use anoher raw converter, dont buy an XT1. But let's not repeat the same old same old when its not even true.
edwy: I'm not a big video shooter but why buy a camera with such disappointing video performance? I've owned Nikons since '78 (FE) and I've had problems but my 7100 is cheaper to buy and does a great job of taking fotos. Why pay more for the camera and invest in new lenses?
Well I never shoot video and I DO mean never, so why wouldnt I? I think we can assume that potential X-buyers have other interests...
I had a Hasselblad X Pan once. It was a rebadged Fuji sold in Europe under the Hasselblad name. I didn´t care. I don´t think anyone who bought an X Pan cared because they were good cameras, built like tanks, that did something unique and, crucially, were priced at a level that reflected what they were - a good quality albeit niche pro camera. This on the other hand just makes me sad. If Russian oligarchs and footballers and whoever else has enough money to consider this want to be this, fair enough, it´s their business, not mine. But it makes me sad that a company who were once noted for rugged utility should now be aiming at the novelty market.
lorenzo de medici: This looks like a great camera. I don't like the current trend of putting old fashioned round dials on the tops of cameras. The old round dials 30 years ago were mechanical devices. These are just pointless imitations, all the workings are electronic. Ergonomics should take priority over fashion in a serious camera. I can easily adjust aperture, ISO, shutter speed, exposure compensation, metering, and focus mode on my Nikon D600 without taking my eye from the viewfinder. And there are no odd bumps between my finger and the shutter button.
I think everyone Ive seen in the wild with a Fuji x has been under forty I´d say. I suppose with the ad hominem mode of argument that makes them hipsters instead of codgers.
I´m a photographer in my thirties (not twenties but closer to that than my 60s) and I greatly prefer dials for my style of photography. I not the only one. The aperture dials are in a great place to change with an eye to the viewfinder because they are where your hand, or at least my hand , falls on the lens. I´ve never once felt that the interface of my Fuji X or my old film rangefinders was harder to use than the modern DSLRs I used at the same time. I don´t think the modern DSLR stye interface is a question of being modern and therefore better. Its just a question of a different fashion. Assuming modern automatically equals better is the same fallacy as nostalgically asuming the reverse. I think most people would easily adapt to either after a couple of hours without problems. IT also largely depends on your shooting style.
When are people going to get over expressing preferences as some kind of hard fact?
Allen Yang: I can't understand why people would buy Fuji SLRs since it doesn't have as many lens as Canon or Nikon system. In addition, its camera bodies are much less competitive than Canon or Nikon cameras.
Well actually I think if you look specifically at APS-C, the Fuji lens line up is very competitive. There are plenty of gaps in Nikon's DX line up that they are in no hurry to fill. At the moment my lens needs are pretty satisfied. Also it's not a DSLR. Fuji don't make them any more.
novak977: amazing how A7 is ignored while being MUCH better value being FF for just a bit more money. for example EVF is a bit smaller but it is not even shown here along with other cameras.This is nice but APS-C camera, with lot of useful features but nothing really exciting, nothing that can give you FF experience on budget.
There is nothing in the sony system that can give me the experience of using a native 21mm equivalent f2.8 lens for landscape photography which personally why IM ignoring the A7 for the time being. Sensor size is only component of photography and at the sizes I print at, not overly important. The dof thing isnt such a big draw either with those f4 lenses.
attomole: I really like the look of this camera and sure it will perform, but I'm unconvinced by the controls, i would have liked to see a position on the Shutter speed and aperture to use the command dials to set the exposure, thus affording easier control without taking your eye from the finder and use 1/3 stop increments.
So Fuji have nave a camera that for looks I want to buy, but when I put it next to s 70D or a D7100 (or Pentax K?) the performance real world handling and accessory line up is going to be decisive , add in a couple of lenses, particularly the 56 1.2 vs 80 1.8, and even full frame starts to look competitive
I read on Fujirumors a hands-on that implied you can chose to change shutter or aperture via the command dial. Not havign used it I obviously don´t know if that´s correct. But certainly, you have always been able to set 1/3 stop increments on Fuji´s to fine tune the setting on the dial.
Sean65: Seems to me that Sony, Olympus,Fuji et al all started to grab market share by producing small cute cameras but are now slowing growing into small SLR cameras.
Lets face facts here, if you're serious about photography and want serious features you also want a camera that is comfortable to hold. and that is exactly why SLR design is so good.
Maybe we're seeing the end of cute retro at last.
I love all these "if you don´t like the cameras I like you´re not serious about photography posts". A Fuji X Pro is the same size as a Leica M9. Is that not a serious camera? What If I just happen to like using rangefinders? Am I not serious either? I´ve never once had a problem holding my non-SLR style Fuji. Seriousness doesn´t come into it.
justmeMN: Fuwho? :-)
(In the USA, they are a pretty obscure brand.)
Well first of all I don´t live in the USA so thats not really very relevant to me. Out and about I see plenty of cameras that people on DPR are always telling me are "obscure" like Olympus or Pentax or Fuji, so I can only assume that what´s obscure in one place isn´t in others.
Secondly considering Fujifilm were pretty famous for their films, particularly slide films like Provia and Velvia which were used by most of my photographic heroes and some cases still are, you´d have to know very little about the history of photography to consider Fuji "obscure". And I´m in my mid thirties and younger than most people on this site it seems so I´m not nostalgically harking back to some distant era either. I´m talking about 10 years ago.
Thirdly, my X Pro is a niche product. I bought it because it was a niche I was interested in. A niche product is always going to be less popular. So what? Does it make it less useful or mean my photos self destruct after a few weeks or something?
marike6: Do the mushy greens and heavy NR come standard? :-)
But seriously, it's all well and good to make another APS-C camera but with DSLR styling, but unless the RAW conversion issues with Lightroom are sorted (which they really aren't as of yet), it's going to be tough for RAW shooters to get excited about this body.
Doing command line RAW processing with dcraw or investing in yet another converter like Capture One is not all that appealing. Nor is shooting 8-bit JPEGs.
I have none of those problems with my X Pro and I´m not undemanding. RAW conversion has been much improved, even with Lightroom. And I ONLY shoot RAW and most of the time I use ACR.
pew pew: sexy camera but 1800$.....
That price is probably wrong. Rumour sites are now saying 1200. It was a mis conversion from the Japan price that seems to have been spread around the internet...
photobeans: Wow..sexy, but FUJI lenses are wallet busters. Still, do want.
Except Yabokkie you are almost literally the only person on this planet, whether customer, professional reviewer or random internet pundit who says that Fuji lenses are anything but good, making yours a fringe opinion that doesn´t match the empirical evidence, on a par with, say, the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis of pyramid construction or the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.
The only lens I have had any problems with was the 18mm, which I do consider quite poor incidentally, at least for my uses. Every other lens I´ve used has been excellent (14mm, 35mm and 60mm) and on a par with any lens I´ve used from any manufacturer (and I´ve used excellent lenses from Nikon, Hasselblad and Voigtlander). Perhaps you´d like to tell us what lenses you have used and in what circumstances so we can evaluate your claims since they are pretty revolutionary? And I´m far from a fanboy of any brand BTW. I just trust my eyes and the evidence.
Smeggypants: this has to be one of the saddest reviews I've seen. Life is too short to sweat about ball heads.
Yes, because tripods are totally irrelevant to photography, right?. I need a decent tripod a lot more than I need high ISO or lightning fast AF or half the things people round here worry about----
vFunct: Only talented people can use this camera.
Untalented people have to use Sony or Canon or Olympus.
Also, it is a mark of amateurs to use cute baby mirror less cameras.
Aww how cute - a newb photographer with a mirror less camera!
Maybe one day the mirror less camera photographer will grow up and use a Reflex system like the big boys do.
Yay! We're rooting for you, cute little mirror less camera kiddos!
I've used cameras ranging from large format to nikon d2x to hasselblad xpan rangefinder and now I use a fuji x pro1. Why? Because I know a decent amount about photography and based on that I decided it was bext for me. You dont like mirror less? Great, but save us the kindergarten stuff