Guidenet: Yeah, dump the typical DSLR for a Nikon DF or Fuji XPro2 et al. I can wear it with my Faux Giorgio Armani Hong Kong suit and a Bolex wrist watch and really impress the ladies. Hubba hubba! What you wear is more important than the photographs you make. Give me that retro look.
I really have no idea what you´re on about it in this post Guidenet. I got the original X Pro 1- because I wanted something with high quality lenses in a small package for hiking. I bought it cos of the dials and OVF because I used to use rangefinders and enjoyed it.
Fashion? No-one I know cares about cameras. For most people there would be nothing more unfashionable than an X-Pro that looks (to them) like some sort of grandad camera. Most of my friends have no idea why I don´t just use an I-phone either. So I score exactly zero hipster points for using a Fuji X camera.
"What you wear is more important than the photographs you make."
That´s extremely patronising. Could I take my photos with another system? Yes. Is there another system that for me offers the right balance between size, quality and a control system and viewing system that I like? IMO, no.
El Chubasco: In my opinion this review is full of subjective viewpoints that belong to the reviewer only. For example, to state that the camera is more appropriate for primes and asses the ISO dial control is quirky is just matter of personal taste. I feel comfortable using zoom lenses with my X-Pro2 and I find the new ISO control very useful, just lift and rotate with your right hand (in addition to the extra Fn button that it liberates). Since the original X100 I felt very comfortable with Fuji's rangefinder approach. I sold all my gear and I never looked back. Of course, I have been shooting the X-Pro1 for a while and I find that the hybrid viewfinder offers the best of both worlds. This review seems to be written in a hurry, without an objective and impartial point of view. This site should remember that everything published in this website has a strong impact on the public. Subjective opinions do not help buyers to make a fair assessment of the products reviewed here.
"this review is full of subjective viewpoints"
Thats what it makes it a review, surely? By definition.
Andrei L: I'm eagerly anticipating the dumping prices three to four years from now plus the firmware updates this will be receiving by that time, not to mention upcoming smaller form factor lenses to double as cheaper WR alternatives to the current 1.4's, as the 35mm has seen :)
I'd really rather enjoy it if they ever released a proper SLR for the optical bit and saving that battery while always seeing the actual framing. Not to mention truly functional PDAF and continuous tracking, as the hipster image thing really starts getting in the way of what can be otherwise called a solid and moderately compact camera system.
Why would they realise a DSLR? It wouldn´t be compatible with their lenses cos they´re too close to the sensor for a mirror. For Fuji, a DSLR basically means starting a new system from scratch.
The "optical bit" is for people who like rangefinders and want to see around the edges of the frames. It has its purpose and its a different purpose from a DSLR. If you want TTL veiwing buy the XT-2 when it comes along and put up wit hthe battery situation or else buy a DSLR from another manufacturer. Fuji are quite clear what the X-Pro series cameras are supposed to be, and it´s not a DSLR. There are lots of DSLRs on the market. They do things the X-Pro can´t do. The X-Pro does at least one thing they can´t do either. Why would you buy one if you wanted the other?
What is the "hipster images" and how is it getting in the way? It´s not getting in my way at all.
MikeStern: Oh wow. I am shocked to see DPreview successfully managed to not use the 'must to mention' words like Sony, A6300 in this review. In the apsc line of cameras, no matter how beautiful this camera is with a great image quality, it terribly falls short on many aspects compared to A6300 for much lower price point. Which this has not been a new story.
I am sure Fuji did not beg DPreview to not make Sony comparisons. Or did it?
The A6300 is better on paper in many respects but personally I couldn´t use one for my purposes because it lacks specific lenses I need like high quality, native mount wide primes, without adaptors and messing around. I think Fuji´s lens philosophy is more coherent and you can´t judge a camera in isolation from its ecosystem. I really couldn´t care less about 4K video. Your priorities may differ, that´s why it might be a better camera for you, but personally I´ve never got on with Sony (despite being an old Minolta user - the Dynax 7 was one of my favourite cameras ever). Also I like rthe idea of an updated rangefinder concept.
The A6300 really isn´t aimed at me. It´s not just about looks.
ogl: 1700 USD for APS-C camera when there are FF cameras from 1200 tilll 1900 USD....
It´s a niche product as the review says. Niche products are always a bit more expensive because they don´t sell in the same volumes. Personally I´d take the X Pro 2 over a Sony FF for example, because I fit in that niche. You obviously don´t. That´s life.
Imakefoto4U: Surely Seattle in the middle of the winter with gloomy skies is hardly real world conditions. Send the cameras to Sydney or somewhere where it is bright and sunny all year long.
Because in the real world winter and gloomy skies don´t exist right? People who live in the Pacific NW or Scotland or northern Spain or southern Chile or etc etc, none of them are real? They´re all just holograms living inside the matrix. That´s what your telling us right? These places don´t exist.
Boss of Sony: Yep, same old crappy sensor. That's why I got rid of my x100s. Will stick with Sony from now on. Retro looks are for superficial, materialistic consumers.
"Retro looks are for superficial, materialistic consumers."...says someone who switches camera systems like that (snaps fingers). Because obviously endlessly selling and buying bodies in the search for slightly better high ISO performance and slightly more resolution which will never show unless you do exhibition size prints, is in no way materialistic, right?
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.
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.