b craw: Idk, I always try to entertain stated metrics and embrace the inevitable subjectivity in this roundup business. But, I'm looking at the studio test scene results and it seems the 28MP BSI of the NX1 is markedly better in terms of stills IQ than the GH4*. Add to that the very impressive AF and 15fps in the NX1. Of course the GH4 is the king for video. But the 4K NX1 looks to be very capable as well for video. So I'd reverse the recommendation: NX1 just edging the GH4.
*it should be noted the X-T1 is better than everyone here at high ISO JPEG's - gorgeous.
Go on explain why it's silly? No need to get over sensitive young man. Fuji raws are processed and Fuji cameras do report ISO incorrectly massively so in the case of the xe-1, check yourself. They are idealists cameras because they are based on the purist/ fanboy principles of just photography with prime lenses they don't cover the bases required to win these sort of tests, rightly or wrongly..and their photographic capability is arguably not on a par with the best in class. I don't hate Fuji, I'm not a big fan but i think I made that clear and I think my conclusion of why it would never win this test is perfectly reasonable, I also respect your right to have a right hissy fit and I'm pleased you like it when people make reasonable comments with justification rather than just calling someone clueless without any justification other than the power of being an anonymous unqualified nobody on the Internet, thanks !
the XT-1 is a matter of taste, personally i'm not a fan of Fuji noise, their processed RAW files or the fact that they tend to report ISO incorrectly giving a false impression of their capabilities. the Fuji is an idealists camera and its limited in its capability, thats why it would never win this sort of group test
40daystogo: Once the LX series ceases to be a true pocketable camera, then it is up against cameras that are fairly small but not quite pocketable, such as the Sony A6000 which has an APS-C sensor. If you use the stuido-compare function of the above review, you'll see the A600 blows the LX100 out of the water.
Its easy to cast off this question as academically flawed such as "what lens are you going to use with the A6000 that will keep it small" but in the real world this thing is already big, have you seen it ? i have i think its optimistic of DPR to say its only slightly larger than a G12, its not pocketable and once its not pocketable a lot of the academic arguments go out of the window. Also, the price, do i tie myself to a fixed lens or do i get a slightly larger body that i can use with a vast variety of other lenses? i can see the appeal of the LX100 but lets not try to claim its perfect. For me, its too big without enough benefit. maybe if it was Full Frame but there are better options for the same money if critical image quality is all you care about, if its portability then personally, i still think its too big
Jogger: Just wondering if this video sponsored (i.e. paid for) by Canon? The description is not clear.
I agree, this review was far too biased, they should have shot the 7D II with Nikon, Olympus and Sony lenses so we get a more objective review...
PerL: So people go crazy because a real pro thinks the top of the line 1Dx is a bit better. Some nasty reactions here.
pathetic reactions is more accurate. I think there are some here who's ego can't take the fact that she is a pro photographer.
GPW: A newspaper reporter is hardly a pro photographer.
i think the other thing these photography snobs are forgetting is, this is the kind of camera aimed at the kind of shots she takes professionally. action shots. I'm sure some of these posters here making their pathetic claims that she isn't a professional were also commenting on the preview of the 7DII saying it was only any use for action of photo journalism. I'm still laughing at the comment about photo journalists vs pro photographers. Who do these people think they are ??
matty_boy: the x100 baffles me, admittedly the electronic shutter is not a bad addition but not an essential one, this is incremental at best. The preamble says about Fujis 'continuous improvement' but id say this is much more about re-hashing the same camera and trying to squeeze money out of an old camera. The DNA is the same but the price has gone up. If you look at the market now, you can pick up a canon EOS-M with 22mm f/2.0 lens for about £250, the system has few lenses but the x100 just has one, so when in direct comparison its not a consideration (although it does put the canon in a more favourable light) it has the same sensor as the canon 7D, so excellent DNA itself. For all intents and purposes its the same package as the x100 minus the vanity 'retro' exterior, with very marginal differences in capability. At £999 for the x100s i know which id buy and it doesn't have a Fuji badge on it...
I can and have taken many shots with an X100s and the EOS-M (i am a store owner in the UK). The difference between DR and at high ISO is negligible even dxoMark Pro which attempts to measure this sort of thing have them very close for both. the results are very different but also equivalent from a performance perspective. Fuji RAW and jpeg have what i would call typical fuji processing applied to them, the Canon is classic Canon, luminance noise at high ISO. the Fuji tends to smear as the ISO gets cranked up. For all practical purposes, image quality is very similar between these cameras and given the equivalence of set ups (fast 20~mm ish lenses) i stand by my initial comment.
Kim Letkeman: These images are not worth the effort of critically judging the merits of this camera for anyone beyond the level of rank beginner. Too many variables and the images look too much like casual snapshots in the care that was taken (which I think is the process for first look images here.). However, there is certainly potential in what I see here.
id love to hear some reasoning behind this. I mean, i accept that Dp review forums is full of some very self-important posters who seem to think they operate on a level above us mere mortals but for the sake of objective assessment what better medium for judging a cameras capabilities than looking at photos taken with the camera?
Was there no rule of thirds? no golden mean? no carefully selected scene possessing a 25% grey gradient with some Fluorescent light to throw of the colours ? jeez
with all that spec and overreaction the sensor was always going to be a bit of a letdown..
so, ill repeat it really slow, just for you jeremy judging by your overreaction this X100T is some sort of second coming (personally i think its the third lame iteration of the same DNA with the price pushed back up to RRP to snag any old idiot who will pay up). Here goes Jeremy. The X100T is £999 (ok ? keeping up ?) it has a 23mm f/2.0 lens (yep?) the canon EOS-M is £250ish depending where you shop, this is with a 22mm f/2.0 lens. try to change it whichever way you want Jeremy but this makes these cameras very very similar and worthy of comparison, more so that a 7D which isn't mirrorless or any of the other things you have thrown in to try and change the premise of my comment (Still with me?) right, because they are so similar and because the sensor in the EOS-M is extremely capable my point is that you can get very similar results for a 1/4 of the price. Why you no understand ? Jez? why Jez, why ? its not that hard is it ?
Hachu21: The exact same size as the eos M + 22 f/2... Oh my...
"Why do you compare a FF sensor inside a 5D with an APS-C into the 7D"
Because you compared that in the lx100 in the EOS-M claiming one was inferior (with no evidence) and then made the abstract claim that it was also boring, which is as bizarre as it is irrelevant. I actually compared the 5D to the LX100 sensor to make a counter point but you clearly didn't read what i posted properly.
apples and "oranges" indeed.
My point is simple and has nothing to do with PASM dials, shutter speed etc, it was simply to say that the IQ of the EOS-M will take some beating (go on, read my comment) and i still stand by that comment. size wise they are similar, IQ is likely to be better in the EOS-M, thats it. It was not me who decided to make the claim that the sensor in one was better than the other, that was you.
When i gave an example of comparing sensors being misleading because the 5D sensor (which is old) is certainly better than that in the LX100 (which is new) you decided to abuse me.
@marc, According to you, maybe. I'll wait until someone who has credentials does an objective review on the sensor rather than some nobody on the internet.
I expect the sensor to be no better than the 7D sensor that is fitted to the EOS-M and perhaps will require some firmware trickery due to the very impressive lens set up. Amazing design, it has to be said. i think people may be getting a bit carried away with this camera, sure it looks interesting but based on objective comparison its quite expensive for the kind of results you can expect if its compared to any camera you could purchase. Of course in this class, size and convenience have to be taken into consideration and I believe thats the point the original poster was making. Just because its old doesn't mean its inferior unless newness is all that matters. The sensor out of a 5D would run rings around this all day and thats much older than the 7D sensor.
does it really matter at this size, EOS-M isn't pocketable but the IQ with the 22mm f/2.0 and larger APS-C will take some beating
I'm sure everyone disagreeing will continue to put forwards irrelevant arguments but firstly Jeremy, I can use any comparison I want, including the price of each camera today. In the real world there has never been a point where the x100t was £999 and the eos-m £600 at the same time in the real world. Maybe in some academic world with a time machine but not one I'm in. What the market thinks matters to bankers and business owners, do I care that the market thought the eos-m a dud? Nope It means I get as much camera as the x100t for quarter of the price, in the real world. Eos-m AF since firmware 2.0 is as good if not better then the 100s, there are videos showing this on YouTube. And this is not about the XA1, if you read earlier it's about the x100t which also has a wide f/2.0 lens. I hate it when people rewrite the argument so they can claim to be right, make sure you read posts more carefully in future Jeremy.
wow, a viewfinder, it must be some viewfinder to command a £750 premium over the Canon. Im sure purchasers need to convince themselves that their large outlay was justified, in your case, by a viewfinder. As with all Fuji gear, in a couple of months it will be half the price and there will be a new x100 with 99% of the same components but some other tenuous reason to pay RRP again... roflmao
Im not sure what your point is. This is purely about cost, my point is that they are effectively the same yet Fuji want a huge premium and you get pretty much the same results from a much cheaper camera. who cares what the market thinks, I'm sure fuji are happy taking a grand off people for a camera that does the same as something a quarter of the price.. who is the idiot ?
the x100 baffles me, admittedly the electronic shutter is not a bad addition but not an essential one, this is incremental at best. The preamble says about Fujis 'continuous improvement' but id say this is much more about re-hashing the same camera and trying to squeeze money out of an old camera. The DNA is the same but the price has gone up. If you look at the market now, you can pick up a canon EOS-M with 22mm f/2.0 lens for about £250, the system has few lenses but the x100 just has one, so when in direct comparison its not a consideration (although it does put the canon in a more favourable light) it has the same sensor as the canon 7D, so excellent DNA itself. For all intents and purposes its the same package as the x100 minus the vanity 'retro' exterior, with very marginal differences in capability. At £999 for the x100s i know which id buy and it doesn't have a Fuji badge on it...
lacikuss: The perfect marriage Chevrolet & Sony...both outstanding brands known for their high quality
I can't get passed the bias here, the RX100 is an outstanding camera, to try and belittle its achievements by suggesting it could be a loss-leader and then attempting to qualify that by claiming they could sell the RX1 for a ridiculously low price, why do that?
Also with Nikon and many premium compacts, the entire sensor is made by Sony. its disingenuous to write that Nikon "design chips" whilst asserting that Sony are merely fabricators in your opening sentence. This is not the truth, Nikon are not chip experts and are only directly involved in ADC aspect of post sensor image capture.
Im not sure why you feel the need to meander ambiguously into a position where you can still try to claim that your original assertions were anything other than bias/fanboyism or whatever. Followed by the stock 'grow up' churned out by all and sundry on internet forums, well done. Patronising clap trap, i get the impression you specialise in that sort of thing though.
@ M DeNero
very entertaining. the RX100 and RX1 are undoubtedly class leaders and yes unfortunately that includes the 'subjective' area of photographic quality. Although the RX10 has stiff competition (that actually uses the same Sony* sensor) it is (as i said they all are) 'arguably' a class leader. The RX100 is so far ahead of competition that new releases are almost redundant, making todays X30 launch almost pointless if you are objective. And, so what if Pellicle mirrors have been around for 50 years. The combustion engine was around for years before the car but by your logic we could argue that the car is not innovative at all as engines existed before them. Utterly ridiculous. I dislike this hugely biased attitude, to call Sony merely a 'gadget' company is pure ignorance. To prove how ridiculous this stand point is, you say "I trust imaging companies with decades of experience dealing with photography" So, would that include Nikon who use Sony sensors in all their products?
Have they been known as a Jack of all trades, master of one? Personally its the first time I've ever heard that statement about them, they are typically japanese in that they are not afraid to enter new markets. One of the things Steve Jobs admired about Sony was their exacting standards whatever they did. Their TVs have always been excellent, even going back to the Trinitrons, the walkman, high definition audio etc etc. Sony are relatively new to the photography game but they are doing a lot of pioneering stuff in the photography world, The RX1, RX10, RX100 are all arguably class leaders, Their work on translucent mirrors (SLT) is another area they have broken new ground and the a7s is the king of high ISO. I would defy anyone to see huge differences between the a7s and other cameras including the best from Canon and Nikon but I have to accept that some people maintain a bizarre pseudo-religious war between brands and this involves subjective and irrational detraction from others. sad