Operator: So many "I love this company." posts. Maybe one of you would want to buy my X-E2?
Crappy AF, crappy RAW-support, crappy flash system (onboard and off), overpriced prime lenses, overpriced and huge zoom lenses and now ... left out in the cold with firmware updates (still uses the same sensor with the same electronic like the X-T1).
That's how Fuji X buyers feel in reality after only 1,5yrs of usage. Thx Fuji, but NO thx - I'm out!
Looking at sales figures, and the success of the camera, plus the number of pros using the system - I'd say that not everybody agrees with you.
Sorry to hear it doesn't work for you. But it's way too much of a generalization to say that Fuji X buyers feel left in the cold and that most of the hardware and software is overpriced "crap". I'd say that the vast majority loves these cameras, and with good reason.
Slipstack: Review quote: "The Q is much heavier though and has a far superior build quality to the Fujifilm."
So why is it that that red dot with the Leica logo is not aligned correctly, but twisted 2-3 degrees clockwise, enough to make it seriously annoying to look at? Is this just me, or have nobody else noticed?
First thing I noticed, too. It's a preproduction model, I suppose, but it is sloppy.
AlpCns2: Amazing camera, which (amazing) optics to match. Bravo, Samsung!
Alessandro, IQ is indeed paramount. Samples pictures can be found at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1/15
At first I thought: lots of canned, pre-chewed half-answers. Then, after reading DPR's epilogue, the impression was much better, also because much of the "good stuff" was probably off-record.
What amazed me, and still amazes me, is Nikon's insistence that the 1-series covers the need for those that want small, fast, and capable mirrorless systems. Nikon: It hasn't, and it doesn't.
And I am saying that as a great fan of your products, Nikon. That you're obviously listening now is good. You've got to listen better still.
Amazing camera, which (amazing) optics to match. Bravo, Samsung!
oselimg: So, Dpreview doesn't rate cameras on the basis of image quality since NX1 is awarded gold. Or Do you have "different" criteria for each brand? Perhaps Samsung now is a huge company to ignore.
Can you please explain what (scientific or not) method you applied in order to arrive at your (rather odd) conclusion that DPR doesn't rate cameras on the basis of image quality.
phoenix15: This camera deserves gold award. I can't understand DPR judgment.
I completely understand DPR judgment, because it is very carefully reasoned and very well weighted against the competition, which is equally very good. Which is exactly why it is difficult.
The "problem" is that here are no really bad camera systems anymore. They are all good, very good even. All offer performance and features we could only dream of roughly half a decade ago. And then picking "the best" out of a bunch of excellent options becomes (has to become) more of a personal choice -as correctly argued by DPR, "very specific requirements"- than a clear winner on specs and/or performance alone.
Interesting series, excellent pictures too in a rather difficult environment, as most factories are. Always fascinating to see how much precision, care and craftsmanship goes into precision mechanics and optics such as this.
Bravo DPR, Bravo Sigma!
A very pleasant and informative read - in short, an excellent interview. Yamaki-san clearly has the vision of a true leader, with feeling for the market and customer-focus. The man simply sees it sharp: very sharp. A breath of fresh air, such a outspoken and honest CEO. Companies like that have my respect and sympathy, and get my business.
Sympathy, and great respect for the considerable technical capabilities of Fuji. A properly customer-focused company too. Remember, these are the only guys that were good enough to design and fabricate cameras and lenses for, for example, a highly respected medium format brand such as Hasselblad. Not Nikon, not Canon - and I am saying that as a user of both systems.
These are the guys that design and supply world-class optics for all kinds of applications. Many companies do, of course, but few are so well attuned to their customer base these days. Good products is important, but the latter is a very good thing. It forces others (I'm looking at you, Nikon) to listen better.
exapixel: I don't know why DPR has to constantly bash Sony. Not a single Sony product was mentioned in this story even though all the cameras were mirrorless. You are all paid net shills for the doomed calotype vendors.
At least it is (was) full frame mirrorless.
It's (again) obvious that Sigma is on a roll. As expected, this is a very, very fine lens. Half the price of the competition, and better quality to boot. What's not to like?
It's a great time to be a photographer.
Fuji is doing some very, very smart things. They understand that great and relatively compact lenses, of excellent mechanical and optical quality, make the system desirable, capable and professional. Together with some wonderfully small yet extremely capable fixed-lens rangefinder-ish offerings they have exactly what many experienced users need and want.
Brilliant yet simple strategy. Makes one wonder why not all camera makers think that way.
Sigma is clearly on a roll. If recent releases are anything to go by, this will be one spectacular lens.
Beautiful design. Together with Oly's excellent glass, this should be one very capable camera.
Horshack: Very nice follow-up on the flare issue Rishi. Ever since you started contributing to the editorial content on the site the depth of technical information has increased markedly. I just wanted to say thanks and to let you know your contribution hasn't gone unnoticed.
I would like to second that. Excellent reporting and a pleasure to read.
Rather hilarious, that the Canon 1D X fared the worst, after all the furor on the web about the D750. Actually, I use both Canon and Nikon systems, including the Canon 1D X as well as the D750, and never noticed any problems with flare.
It seems to me that the conclusion that "this issue won't really be an 'issue' in all but the rarest of circumstances" is certainly valid. As is the case with most hyperbole on the internet.
Brilliant initiative by a brilliant photographer.
JaimeA: Reading the specifications we found out that this camera has NO image stabilization. Totally nuts if you like closeups, interior and night shots.
So what's the point? It has a 150-year old proven device instead, called a "tripod socket". It is very possible to make excellent shots in low light due to the lack of any vibration.
And if need be, use a tripod. Jeez!
rondom: This camera is excellent looking until you start shooting with it, and then it looks like a dog with an erection. The built in cap makes it even worse.One other point: I don't think anyone would be jumping up and down if they saw the lens performance before the built in digital lens correction kicks in.(Having said that I can understand the enthusiasm over this)
Who cares what it looks like. The results is what really counts. I own and use cameras that are pig-ugly, heavy, old-fashioned and cumbersome. But they do take stellar pictures.