kentwosheds: When the reviewer states he would rather use the rear screen than the viewfinder, he doesn't take into account wearers of reading glasses.To use the screen would mean having to wear glasses, whereas the viewfinder means no specs required.
Nah, it is the same...
Pretty much nod to fuji xe1 in styling, but definitely a modern camera. And I guess the focus speed would smoke the fuji for breakfast.. The m43 format is doing well.
Looks great on paper, but why they think a pro gear needs retro styling.It is either geared to very old people or lomo steam punk crowd. By the price I'd say the first as it is quite larger than an iPhone. Why the mee-too retro styling, why?
Idea may be good, except the panorama wow factor was like a decade ago. I know, I was making them. Since then I realized that nobody else from my circle really wanted to see them....
EFC11: I have an A7 and an X-E2 at home right now and have taken numerous shots inside and out (admittedly kit mens on both). I can't find a reason to spend the extra on the A7 and in fact i prefer many images from the X-E2 (oh and with same lenses its half the price. I really wanted to like the Sony but i just don't see it in the images and i think the X-E2 and especially the lenses are better built. I shoot JPEGS as i don't have time to mess with Aperture etc.
I think it is because fuji has so more reasonable lens follow up. It takes a lot to make excellent FF lens. I guess if you somehow mount the sony FF lenses on APS-C you would be surprised how sharp and solid they are.Unfortunately while FF sounds great, people will be let down by lenses - either pay a lot or be disappointed.
Dgeer: Lol....hey m43 is my choice for the same reasons as many others but I went from Nikon D90 to lumix G2 and now G3 simply because the Nikon wouldn't take ready to use shots from camera in daylight situations anywhere in the world. Nikon claim there is nothing wrong with it and friends always used there's in manual and raw and spent time in Photoshop or similar. I don't spend time touching up as I was originally a film user and you got 36 expensive shots only so you want to get it right in camera. You can take many more digitalis but at the end of the day you want the best compositions etc rather than anything else so I try to get exposure etc correct in camera. With the Lumix M43 and even their Tz smaller cameras they do this very well. The iA button lets u slip in and out of auto and now I rarely need to use A or S or other settings. Portability is another major reason for choosing m43 and the lenses quality from Panasoic and of course Olympus is awesome.
This is why I went with fuji. Excellent image straight from the camera, no fiddling with computer, no so called "developing". I think holiday shooters have more time on their hands than I do.
AlexRuiz: Here is my own experience for what it’s worth, as the EM-5 and EM-1 are fairly similar.
In early 2013 I purchased 2 cameras, a D600 and an EM-5. The D600 I bought with my fingers crossed based on all the baggage and negative reviews about oil spots and stuff. The EM-5 I excitingly purchased based on the extremely positive reviews.
Almost a year later, the D600 never had any oil spot issues (or whatever) and it has surpassed my expectations. The image quality is just superb. Regarding the EM-5, I found all those overwhelmingly positive reviews to contain a fair amount of exaggeration. While being a good camera, the EM-5 image quality is not as great as many would want you to believe; definitely not on par with the D600.
Verdict: I take the D600 any day of the week and will be keeping it indefinitely. The EM-5 will be sold (as will be the pana 14mm f2.5 and pana 20mm f1.7). Anyone interested let me know.
I agree with you on d600 being superb, but it is weird to be comparing them. I know the OMD does look like dslr, but that is where it ends - with looks.
Actually the execution and lighting is top notch.
fooddudeone: Most awesome thing I've seen in a while!
Was never a fan of all these iPhone lens attachments (might as well use/buy a p&s camera) ..but this is something else! They're actually giving us something that isn't even possible without having to spend $1000-4000 on your dslr/mirrorless camera. Not to mention SIZE. A dslr/mirrorless anamorphic rig will be Huge - camera, mf lens, adapter mounts, anamorphic adapter, possibly rails and extras.
This gives us a real anamorphic lens and aesthetic that truly fits in your pocket - the aspect ratio, the slight distortion and most importantly the vertically stretched bokeh and the flares.
Iphone video IQ is decent and easy to use...especially just for home/travel/hobby videos..and this anamorphic adapter, will make a killer street anamorphic video camera.
Anamorphic lens is ok, but the question is what you going to do with IPHONE and an anamorphic lens. Look I am a pretend-filmmaker?
peevee1: Very poor result from Df's JPEG. Change comparison from default cameras with many more pixels (and smaller pixels) to Fuji X-E2 and Olympus E-M1 with the same 16 mpix. Surprisingly, Df's JPEGs are worse than both even at ISO 12,800, both in detail and especially in color blotchiness. How have Nikon managed to screw up such a huge sensor size advantage?And in the test Df got 1/3200s of exposure @f/5.6 while E-M1 got only 1/5000s (broken DPR testing strikes again), and E-M1's result STILL looks brighter (compare middle grey where DPR logo is) - easily 1 stop testing advantage to Df which STILL did not help it to win or even get close. Wow. Just wow.
I am looking at iso 100 and the nikon is very soft with a lot of moire. Looks worse than any half price APS-C - maybe the samples are wrong? Can't believe that this are results from newest FF camera.
Normally I am all for retro look, but this seems to me a bit too much self serving. Well maybe some people will be all over this... also the samples seem very soft with lot of moire. Bad samples?
Michael_6: I seem to recall the biggest weakness of the X-E1 was low light autofocus. Does the on-sensor phase detection mean this has been addressed, then?
My x100s has those and, well, it works like the old x100 with latest firmware...so it is a placebo effect.
David Smith - Photographer: Not much of an improvement over the X-E1. I don't like the Fuji processing. When you compare the image quality to a camera like the Olympus E-M5, you can clearly see that the output is softer, more processed. At higher ISO's there's less noise, but also less detail. I prefer to do my own processing rather then let the camera do it for me.
I thought I am the only one who thinks panasonic images are dull...Fuji seems to give the best overal look, but if you process the raw files badly you can get in a trouble. The OOC JPG are awesome.
Woodlink: November 15 release date.
Just in time to take turkey pics
Just to compliment PS4 release.
Wingszero: It is rather a dilemma for me to order a X-e2 because of its price compared to X-pro1. $999 is even higher than its bigger brother now, though it is lighter, smaller(and maybe a little faster?). I'd rather wait for the next generation of X-pro1...
Once you put a lens the differnce is not that big. XA1 or XM1 are the smaller option.
eopix: How many of these changes will trickle down to existing X-E1's via firmware updates I wonder?
About 50% of the improvements are nothing just a better firmware.
Oh, please not again with the world fastest autofocus on fuji X.
With all those claims fuji should be now faster than light speed - it will take your image before you actually press the shutter.
I have xpro1 and x100s and both are world fastest autofocus, yet somehow still behind olympus, panasonic and sony. PR Magic. Other than that I do believe in fuji image quality and the lens quality. Just their PR team needs haircut.
Rehabdoc: I think it's a nice camera, but it will all come down to image quality... if the image quality is top notch a la almost RX100, they would still have to price this more in the $400 range to position themselves in relation to the RX100.
RX100 made a huge splash, and I think in some ways opened up the "casual consumer's" mind to the issue sensor size in compacts.
Falling behind in terms of both MP and in terms of sensor size, this camera basically has to be SUPERIOR sensor quality to RX100 to really make any kind of big splash in this sector I think.
I might consider buying this camera, but probably at a lower price than $499. With peaking and the fast autofocus, the actual performance of this camera might be really great, and hopefully if it doesn't make a huge splash, the price will be much lower.
The rx100 is also pretty fast in AF. Somehow I don't believe this fuji would be in the same range.
mcshan: Canon has yet to followup on their larger sensor G1X. Theirsmall camera S series line has the same small sensor. They are starting to fall behind the competition. This little Fuji looks pretty good. If someone can afford it the Sony RX100 (1 or 2) would be even better. Sensor size matters. All things being equal I want a small camera with a bigger sensor. There is no way I would buy an S120 now.
The price between this and the older rx100 is not that much far apart... and trust me the rx100 would feel like 10x this fuji camera.
(unknown member): For guys that wanted an X10 or 20 that would fit in a shirt pocket, and the XF-1 was just a bit too wierd control-wise (manual zoom?) and too EXR, this is just the ticket, even though it obviously is not mining quite the retro vibe of the rest of the X range.
Would work if the price was not almost like the x20 itself....I see fuji is back at the game re-leasing the same stuff just dressed in different package and keeping the price hefty.