adhall: Would have been nice to also make it equivalent to the Canon/Nikon 24-70s i.e. make it ~f/2.0...
Umm...I had both the Canon and Nikon 24-70s and they're f2.8. It's basically the same with a bit more depth of field.
Erik Pavirik: Seriously, this camera is not for hardcore pixel peepers. The water color effect is unnoticeable in protraits under significant amount of magnification. i made a test out of curiosity.
Taken with X-t1, xf 18-55mm f2.8-4in camera setting: NR: -2, Htone: -2Htone: -2Color: 0Sharpness: 0 measured in picassa, this magnification is around 400%+
edit: Here's one with highlights
I think it is for hardcore pixel peeprs. Just not using LR or ACR. The pixel level detail with PhotoNinja is astounding, and it's very good with Iridient. With no green mush. Comparable to my 5D MkII - though with 20 more MP, my D800 is king.
km25: An 84% and gold, a lot of Fuji haters are not going to sleep well tonight. I own the X-T1, it is a fine camera with good manors the creates fine images. What more can you want? All cameras have limites and strengths. The X-T1 is well balanced in it MP, noise and size. It has an excellent lens made for it. I the thing I love the most, the movies aren't very good. I feel as if it has receive a fair review, other sights have given even a little more.None of the camera draw backs are major. It may well be the best mirror less over all on the market.
The ISO button isn't crippled. Yes it has a lock. To me, this is no different than holding down a modal button on my Canon and flipping a wheel. In fact, it's easier. And I change ISO much less than aperture and shutter speed, which is a cinch on this on this camera.
LR sucks for Fuji. It's too bad that dpreview uses it but I get the logic. You want insane pixel level detail? Try out a Fuji 23mm and PhotoNinja or Iridient. There is no watercolor or green mush with those converters.
Stephen Scharf: I'm glad that the Fuji X-E2 is on this list (as the X-Pro1 was on the first list), but I have to really take exception to the "struggles with fine green detail" comment. This might be a bit of an issue with LR or ACR, but it most definitely is not with Capture One Pro or Capture One Express. Both of these applications provide the best RAW conversion of Fuji RAF files, but you never use it in your reviews. As such, you're providing an inaccurate description of what the camera is truly capable of producing.
Also, the comment that RAW support is "patchy" is also inaccurate. By my count, there are ten applications that provide excellent if not outstanding RAW conversion for Fuji X-trans files: SilkyPix, Lightroom, ACR, Capture One Pro, Capture One Express, AccuRaw, Iridient Developer, Apple Aperture, and Photo Ninja. How can *ten* different apps that provide RAW conversion possibly be referred to as "patchy"?
Adobe isn't bundled with cameras in most cases, so really we all buy specific software - Adobe just has the biggest market share.
Raist3d: " The X-Trans design struggles a little bit with fine green detail, so it's not perfect for landscape work," - I hate to say this but this makes no sense.
In fact, fine green detail is an Xtrans better case than regular Bayer because it has more, not less, green photo sites. Landscape photography is actually an Xtrans photography domain best case (you use typically more green than blue/red and you don't care too much of super details in a blue sky because um... it's blue and clouds usually).
The problem is not using an optimal raw converter. Yes, if you use anything adobe, you will get sub par (that doesn't mean bad) results to better RAW converter options for Xtrans. Whenever Adobe steps up their game here, that changes, but this is not "inherent to the Xtrans design."
Probably because of ACR or Lightroom - which are not great with Xtrans. Capture One is good, but can show some issues. Using Photoninja or Irident, greens are awesome - Photoninja is especially good.
Xpro1 RAWs are terrible through ACR/LR. The cameras Jpegs are better more fine detail, more natural color. The only thing better in LR is NR control iin the dark shadows over the in camera jpegs (but not in raw) and highlight recovery - which is exceptional for APSC. The camera really doesnt need a lot of NR to begin with.
It's a great camera, and I love it, but I am not sure I can live without LR. The sensor is awesome clearly, but the workflow is atrocious if silkypix is the only option.
You can say what you want, but from personal experience and from developing RAW even in the crappy converter supplied, the camera is capable of absolutely crazy pixel-level resolution and the noise suppression combined with the detail retained is amazing...it's ACR Beta and it's a new type of array...the RAWs here aren't reflective in anyway of what I have seen - and that's reflected in the fact that the JPEGs here outshine the RAWs by a large margin...you can't talk about mushy RAWs and click to a JPEG which is clean, sharp with good contrast and wonder how it happened...
Frankly don't care if anyone believes it, but have the courtesy to actually shoot a camera before you rag on it...and yes, I have shot and owned/own a 20D, 40D, 7D, 5D MkII, NEX 5N, Panasonic GH2 and Olympus, and about 5 Nikon digitals that I can't remember right now...so I don't have a reason to be biased.
This camera puts out a great image...period. I am sure the final review will reflect this.
jj74e: "Specifically designed to maximise the mirror less design of the body the X-Mount has a short flange back distance of just 17.7mm. "
I thought it does have a mirror because its hybrid viewfinder is also optical? How does it achieve an optical viewfinder without a mirror?
Anyway, I'm not sure what Fuji is aiming for here. It's double the price of the Sony NEX7 if you account for the purchase of one of their pricey prime lenses. So its image quality really does have to be as good as full frame to justify its price. However, it probably doesn't have the video capabilities of Canon's 5D Mark II, and the fact that the one thing Fuji HASN'T really showed off is its AF performances coupled with the X100's sluggish performance probably means its AF performance isn't up to par either. And the 5D is only a few hundred away from Fuji's Pro X system. So...poor man's Leica regardless, it's overly expensive.
Add the new NEX Zeiss prime to the NEX7 body only and then compare prices. Probably not so different at that point. To get the all-metal fast primes I like, I shoot Zeiss on Canon, and all of their better prime glass - with no autofocus! - is over $1000, sometimes $1800. Pro Canon primes are all more expensive than the $650 per Fuji. And all of these lenses are HUGE. I like what I see here, a lot, if the IQ is there.
AF from X100 could be improved, yes...I agree, and I have to believe they addressed it...if not, big issue.
Marty4650: $1700? Body only?
They have to be kidding.
If the object was to make the Sony NEX7 look like a bargain, then Fuji has succeeded.
With three primes at $650 each, all metal, and of fairly small size. Probably of excellent quality. Add the new Zeiss prime to the NEX7, assuming that's a fair comparison prime=prime. How different is the price now?
Visualiza: Image samples are nice and crisp. The high ISO macro shot looks to have a rather unconventional noise pattern; however, nothing objectionable and certainly at least as good as the top APS-C cameras available. I will of course wait for detailed reviews and testimonials...but this may be the compact system solution I've been waiting for. Time will tell.
The lack of an AA filter seems to be of great benefit also. The first thing I noticed is that objects in the distance retain at least a recognizable degree of detail. Not so with my cams, I'm tired of taking landscape photos where leaves, shrubbery, and finer objects turn to mush. If this cam is everything we all hope it will be...when Fuji goes FF they're gonna annihilate the market.
I don't think they'll go full frame and introduce another lens mount. If they think they have quality that rivals full-frame or close to it with their sensor, the only thing they have to mitigate is the shallow depth of field freaks - which they could do with faster glass and not too much bulk based on what I see.
diforbes: I haven't read through all of the comments here so I apologize in advance if my comment has already been voiced: I find the focal lengths of the 18mm and 35mm lens to be odd given the actual field of view of 27mm and 53mm respectively. The "wide angle" lens is not all that wide and the "normal" lens is not ideal for street shooting. I would have liked to see a fixed 24mm and 35mm (at 35mm equivalent focal lengths). Why didn't Fuji offer a version of the 23mm on the X100? Ideally, a fast zoom of 24-70 f2.8 would be great.
Give them time, at least they focused on their target: 3 primes at launch? Who does that anymore? Someone who is targeting a very specific type of photographer with a specific type of photography. In this case, I think they hit the target. I shoot only with primes, and very rarely telephoto.
Summit_pg: This is cool and all, but honestly, why not fix the current cameras? Fuji has the X10 and the XS1 on the market right now and they are crippled by the white dot syndrome. Fuji has not done anything to fix it yet...
I will never buy another "new" Fuji camera. Apparently they do their quality control testing on actual consumers. Buyer beware.
I am sure they are trying. and will because they have to. Perhaps everyone has forgotten all the issues other cameras had with introductions, like the Canon 5DMkII with it's issue of specular highlights upon introduction and other issues, solved and unsolved ...it's now considered a classic breakthrough camera...and other cameras, with other issues like banding, etc. from virtually all manufacturers...they all do their QC on us, they test for what they can and go from there...welcome to digital.