Scott Eaton: I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?
Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.
DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.
You can do well with the lower end Canons as they are now, even without them making any improvements.
But I don't think the Fuji is overrated either, and the guys at the local high-end shop (no P&S, only ILCs like Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Leica) also think it's the best new camera in a while, and are constantly backordered (and the assistant who works there is still waiting for his, because he's last on the list due to his discounted price. But it's his first new camera in years.)
Thanks for looking at it.
Except for moire, I don't see anywhere that the 100D "kills it."
I do see the X-T1 beating the 100D, especially at ISO 6400. It's beating the 70D as well. It's pretty plain to see.
In fact, the closer I look, the more I understand these complaints are red herrings. At ISO 6400, the mushiness, or noise, or both, is in the Canon files, Mr. Eaton. It must scare some people to see Fuji advancing while Canon (which is a good company) is mostly standing still. Don't worry, Canon will move again - in the right direction (and hopefully far enough).
But in the mean time, the LEAST helpful thing for Canon is if they believe those who say they're doing great when they actually need to make some major advancements!
SelfMotivator: Agreed with dpreview's reviews on most aspect except 2 things:
- Flash system: still the weakest link for Fuji. You can only shoot M flash. TTL is so outdated which needs significant upgrade.- 1/4000s is HUGE limitation for fast primes 23mm f/1.4 or 56mm f/1.2. They should fix it.
Other than that, DPReview's images are as BAD as always. I know the subjective is to show how the camera performs in certain conditions but be real, pick a good place and shoot more with attractive subjects and people with good lighting.
DPR moved from London to Seattle. What kind of weather do you expect? Dreary colors are hard to avoid. At least they stayed consistent! ;)
crashpc: I took a look at what you said. I find it easy to forget sometimes how many variables are in play with these studio scenes, and I'm not careful enough in my judgements. Without the full context I'm easily mislead. Please set up the studio comparison tool like this to see what I mean: Daylight, Full size, ISO 800. X-T1, 100D, K-50, K-500 (because the latter two are identical but for minor features).
Upper R corner: Even with Adobe RAW, X-T1 wins. JPEG, XT-1or K-50UL corner: RAW, X-T1; JPEG, K-500 (why not identical K-50?)LL: R, X-T1; J, X-T1 (why Pentax so weak?)LR: R, 100D or K-500; J, K-500.
The point is, the focus is sightly different on the K-50 and K-500 (same lens). What makes us think it's identical on the others? Even at f/5.6 differences show up with slightly closer or further objects, and lenses are imperfect. And some lenses just render with nicer colors or more dimensionally.
Bottle label may win on 100D; coins and Beatles (threads clear) on X-T1. Who wins?
berbmit: An amateur's experience constrained by a price-point:
After my D5100 and all lens was stolen I had the chance for a clean start. The X-T1 became the replacement kit; body and three lens graciously payed for by insurance. It was a hard call to move away from the familiar Nikon range, but after a week I'm convinced that I have a whole lot more camera for the replacement price than I could have got with a Nikon!
In particular, I am amazed at the improved quality (subjectively speaking) compared to my old Nikon RAW (using Lightzone/DCRAW under Linux) ... the difference is immediate to my eye.
The handling is really nice; more compact without feeling too small, solid to hold, great build quality. The EVF in low light was a surprise ... as if I was using night vision goggles ... fantastic for composing a low light image.
I'm still getting used to the idea I bought non-Nikon, at this point I am having no buyer regrets and would not trade back to a Nikon price-parity equivalent.
Including the flash, insurance paid out about what those items (or equivalents) cost today.
Since Fuji doesn't seem to understand the concept of a kit lens (where they're supposed to be cheap and inferior) I think he got a better setup. Easily. Plus it's more compact, and he likes the handling.
As far as CIPA sales numbers, I haven't seen them for this camera, but they should be lower than necessary because demand is outstripping supply. The kit lens is so good (and such a good value when bundled with the body) that the body-only package is the only thing in stock at most places.
There's definitely moire. If that's a deal-breaker, you probably shouldn't buy the camera.
But I'm not seeing the other problems. I compared it to a number of cameras, including the X-A1, but mostly to the D7100 and K-50 (for simplicity's sake). I compared ISO 200, 800, and 6400, some of them in low light. I downloaded the RAW files and viewed in Capture One.
Another poster complained that the X-A1 gave a more 3 Dimensional appearance. This may be true for some objects (not all, I think), but they both out-do much of the competition. And of course lenses play an important role in all of this.
In resolution (not looking at line charts only) the X-T1 generally performs as expected. It outdoes the AA-equipped K-50, but falls short of the 24MP D7100. Looking at the RAW files, noise and dimensionality are generally in the middle of the pack, or exceed the competition. Even at ISO 6400 the Balsamic Honey Vinegar bottle and the coins look good, possibly exceeding the D7100.
Are you looking at the JPEG or RAW studio samples? Daylight or low light?
It's well established that Adobe handles Fuji sensors' RAW files much worse than their competitors (i.e. Capture One and others) do. And as important as JPEG files are in some shooting scenarios, I wouldn't use them to judge the absolute quality of one camera vs. another.
Can you please explain what you're seeing, and a specific location or two where you see it? Perhaps you have a very good point, but I'd like to know where it is.
Really? "It's usually in the last place you look for it?"
Besides the fact that it's my line, how can this product be taken seriously with a lead-in like that? If it weren't for the Kickstarter page, I wouldn't believe this at all!
gsum: This camera isn't medium format - it is MFDX. To describe it as MF is misleading. Looks good though and is almost free of the usual useless 'features' that afflict modern cameras.
FX and DX are based on well established film standards - each with a single, specific size. Not so with MF.
Furthermore, the difference in size amongst MF sensors is much less. FX is about 2.25x the size of DX; larger MF sensors are only 1.5x bigger than this one.
ArcaSwiss: It would cost me $16,000 to upgrade my IQ140 back to IQ250. Same sensor. Need I say more ?
Correction: Pentax has two legacy manual focus Leaf Shutter lenses - 75mm and 135mm - that allow 1/500s flash sync. But they are both out of production, which is probably why Pentax only advertises the 1/125s flash sync you'll get with their other lenses.
Brigcam: Might be better call this 55mm, the term medium format is getting a bit to nebulous
As others are stating, MF cameras always shot a variety of frame sizes on film, unlike 35mm, where only one size was common.
A FF 35mm sensor is 2.25x the size of an APS-C sensor (even more with Canon); The largest MF sensors are only 1.5x the size of this one. So it's not that much of a "crop" compared to the largest MF sensors. But again, I'm not sure that term is fair, given that MF has always encompassed a wide range.
Ayoh: Pretty impressive. It is much better specified on all accounts than its rivals and costs less than 1/3 the price. Why would anyone buy a $30k Hasselblad or PhaseOne?
See my post above for a few examples. Each system has its strengths.
But the fact that it has a much lower price while also being the strongest offering in a number of areas makes it a very good option.
Dave Luttmann: Sony, Nikon and Pentax have pulled ahead of Canon so much it is rather sad.
Except I understand that Ricoh, Canon, and Fuji (I believe) have the most financial strength. Sony has had trouble for a while in many markets, and Nikon doesn't reach very far outside of consumer camera and optical markets, as far as I know - so they're vulnerable that way.
But while Canon's doing well in DSLR equipment sales, I believe they're in danger of remaining relatively stagnant. They've not done enough in the last few years, and it may begin to catch up with them.
rfsIII: Wow. Didn't see that coming. This is an exciting camera for those of us who need high pixel counts but don't want to deal with the complications of buying from the other two MF manufacturers.But who let them name their wireless system after a sometimes-deadly infectious disease? Flucard is a hilarious name until Grandma contracts H1N1 and keels over dead.
The Flucard was already designed and marketed by another company, as announced on this site at the time. Ricoh simply asked them to make an enhanced version that would extend the capabilities of the latest Pentax cameras. It may not be an ideal solution, but it's better than not having the functionality, and it allowed Ricoh to focus their engineering resources on improving other aspects of their cameras (which they did quite well, IMO).
So Ricoh didn't pick the name.
iae aa eia: I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.
This same sensor is being embraced by Phase One and Hasselblad as well, and it's been a standard MF sensor size for a while. Leica and Sony may even use it in future cameras.
Every MF sensor I'm aware of is cropped, though some are cropped a little less than this. But it's not some vastly inferior size - it's a standard MF size, as stated above.
RichRMA: This is not a sports camera. Time for Pentax to go mirror-less here.
It's not a dedicated sports camera, but it actually has the parts that should make it viable for sports. The improvements in the K-3 (from which it gets many of its parts) already proves this. It's certainly not as good as the best sports cameras out there, but the K-3 can do the job. The problems DPR had with the K-3 AF tests were largely due to the fact that they didn't use the right lenses (because most of the best lenses are legacy screw-drive AF glass). So the 645Z could potentially do well with its "legacy" FA glass above, and with the advantages of its resolution, sensor size, and ISO capability, it shouldn't be written off until it's tried.
The strengths of the other systems would depend on a particular photographer's needs. But for example, Phase One's has the excellent Capture One software (which includes tethering capabilities), but it doesn't work with other MF systems (only smaller DSLRs). Phase One also allows use with technical cameras, and offers options like Tilt-shift and 1/1600s flash sync.
While Pentax makes some of the better lenses on the market, some people really love Hasselblad lenses - one of their great strengths. Hasselblad bodies are also generally considered better than the standard Phase One body.
Both Pentax and Hasselblad have weak or brand new tethering software - they won't be able to compete here. Pentax only has 1/125s flash sync. Hasselblad allows 1/800s flash sync (which is also its max shutter speed - slower than the competition).
So each system has its advantages.
For about the same price as the Phase One IQ250 back with the body and an 80mm lens, you can get the 645Z and all 13 lenses listed here! And that's if you pay full retail price for these lenses - the reality is they're readily available used for much less. And of course they overlap a bit, so most photographers would only need to buy 4 to 8 of these lenses. In other words, the complete system costs half the price of the competition's body and sensor alone.
Phase One and Hasselblad each have their strengths, but this is a pretty compelling argument.
Wow, very impressive - looks very useful.
BTW (for those who haven't used it) that's a great lens, too!
Edymagno: I had high hopes for this lens performance but the "lowly" price under $1k will keep my expectations at bay. There's no way the Sigma will approach the Otus IQ. After all, you get what you pay. I truly hope to be proven wrong. Maybe Canon will get it right at around $2k.
Nonsense, Chris Yates. Equal to or better than the Zeiss? Did someone tell you this, or are you actually looking at the photos?