The reality is that the Fuji RAF files contain in all mainstream RAW-tools artifacts. I performed a lot of comparing between almost every tool available in the market, and the X-trans has always traces of color bleeding, pixels with wrong colors, differences in sharpness,... a real perfect conversion is just impossible. The story that this sensor is better than the best FF-sensors is just a hoax, it isn't. The X-T1 won't also be different vs. the X-Pro1, the X-E1 or X-E2, even in 14bit This sensor isn't showing the kind of detail you'll see in a 24MP or 36MP sensor. Nevertheless, I like the X-series for something completely different: the lightweight vs. IQ, the excellent Fujinon glass (really beating quite a few DSLR-lenses) and the overall color setting. DSLR or MLIC... I'm still confused and the major reason why I grap my D800 in so many cases is because my Fujis just don't provide that kind of stability & reliability. Oh yes, they are also still missing a serious flash range.
tbcass: Why do manufacturers make the mirrorless cameras look like they have an SLR prism? One thing you used to see in the early days of digital was manufacturers trying to get away from the traditional style of cameras but these days they tend to be very conservative with "retro" styling holding sway.
Because Fujifilm is purely living from the niche & the hyping around it. With the X-Pro1, I thought 'what a marvelous concept', finally a cutting edge Leica M. It turned out to be different, an excellent IQ linked with a quirky FW, but still the EVF/OVF concept beats anything else in the market. They should have done better, but it seems that the X-Pro1 sales have been extremely low, so they're reaching out for other parts of the market.
I've been a wave one X-Pro1 user. Fuji has had enough opportunities for me to do it right. I never had anything in this digital world that required 13 FW updates before alle problems and bugs were resolved. Even then, there still the AF below par, the slow AF lenses of the first release and a certain impredictability that can ruin every mission. I went back to a DSLR for the serious work, Fuji is only for playing now.
I didn't had my hands on an A7 or A7r, but I can imagine DPReview tells a few things that the fan crowd doesn't necessarily likes. The same happened for a long time with the Fuji X-series. Owning both a pro-DSLR and a X-Pro1, I can say, well, I like the MLIC lightweight and even IQ, but regarding reliability, speed and flexibility, nothing still beats a pro-line DSLR. However, having spend the money to MLIC, quite some people have problems to admit this, even more: they start believing the opposite. A DSLR is crap, outdated, for those 'not seeing the light'. Well, I'm one of those that returned from a MLIC to a full blown DSLR. And I must admit, everything falls back into its place. 55 years of Lens experience, 10 years of new models & firmware development have ironed out all the possible glitches while with a MLIC, every mission is a new challenge. And from what I read about the A7 and A7r, it's pretty much the same as with all the other MLIC: first gen stuff for the adventurers.
Jylppy: Ah, Fanboys in the air! Since it is Nikon it _must_ be better than the independently reviewed award-winning Sigma 35mm/1.4, right? 1/1.4 aperture - who cares! Robust metal construction - plastic is lighter! ;-)
At least in Europe, the difference between this overly plastic and 2/3 stop slower lens vs. the Sigma will be a about 40 Euro. Ever seen the Sigma? Its optical results? Knowing even the AF-S 35mm F1.4 doesn't come close regarding sharpness & overall lens qualities, I'm afraid this lens will become the perfect pick for the 'Only Nikon is the best' type of guys running out of the budget to buy the F1.4. But if I was Nikon there was nowhere a third party lens available that could offer a better lens IQ @ a lower price level. Get awake in Tokyo: the history is full of competent camera companies that disappeared by missing just a tad of vision in their strategies.
UnChatNoir: I hope the quality - surely at full open aperture, that's why we buy these primes- gets finalmy beyond the level of quite a few high-end mirrorless lenses nowadays. An important diifferentiator. It is so disappointing how most Nikon primes are still coping with artifacts, chromatic abberation, coma, distortion... Don't misunderstand me, I like my Nikon D800 a lot, but f.i. my Fujifilm X has far better lenses, sharper & almost no artifacts or distortion. Many Nikon lenses offer an optical quality that didn't evolve too much since the 80's.
And the Nikkors don't suffer from CA? Nikon has a patent on it. Certainly on their fast primes, some F1.4's have CA like hell. I'm not the only one to see it, hundreds of internet tests will confirm you I'm right.
I don't think you ever compared them. I own both and though the overall shallow depth is evidently better on a FF, the artifacts in many Nikkors are very disturbing (I'm speaking about the primes, which is even more unforgivable). Most of all the color fringing, it almost looks like Nikon took a patent on this. 'Caters up to so much audiences'... where is the consistency? Who on this world is still buying the long overdue AF/D's with no motor, very average corner performance? The only thing that is right is the price, indeed. To me, this feels like you would the cheapest tires in the shop to a full-option Mercedes, even the cheapest Nikon DSLR doesn't deserve this type of old-fashioned glass anymore. I dare to say with the hand on my heart that if many Nikkor primes out there would have the Fujinon lens-design, the world would look different.
So what? The end result is an amazing IQ that surpasses nearly every Nikkor. I'm not saying that Nikon makes bad cameras, even contrary, all Nikon FF's are excellent bodies. But when it comes to the glass, it's unacceptable that purple fringing and an elaborate distortion is still present in any 2014 range of lenses. If competition can do it, Nikon can do it as well to get to Zeiss, Leica or even Fujinon IQ. Or do we like it to put 'better than Nikon' Sigma's like the 35mm F1.4 on a D800, to make use of the full resolution?
I hope the quality - surely at full open aperture, that's why we buy these primes- gets finalmy beyond the level of quite a few high-end mirrorless lenses nowadays. An important diifferentiator. It is so disappointing how most Nikon primes are still coping with artifacts, chromatic abberation, coma, distortion... Don't misunderstand me, I like my Nikon D800 a lot, but f.i. my Fujifilm X has far better lenses, sharper & almost no artifacts or distortion. Many Nikon lenses offer an optical quality that didn't evolve too much since the 80's.
I've seen both the silver & black edition in the store. The silver version looks more credible than the black one, which feels to me 'plastic fake'. There's indeed in this concept something wrong, a certain refinement or better: consistency is missing in the design and concept. It's also smaller than I thought it would be, about the same size of a Fujifilm X-Pro1. It's an excellent camera's I'm sure, but both the price tag as the AF system cannot convince me. This marvelous sensor should have deserved something better than the D610's AF system, also in this camera the wrong choice. If you want an high end FF, just buy the D610 or D800 and they will offer you more value for a lower price.
Who is waiting for this? After being compromised with the EOS M now a second attempt to push this silly concept in the market but still without viewfinder. Canon, do you really think you can save your DSLR-market by NOT making a serious, credible Mirror-less camera range? By just offering a toy that maybe the full equipped Canon DSLR-user will pick up to play with, on a hot summer trip? Soon there will be only Sony's, Fujifilm X's, Olympus and even others to conquer your realm.
Yes, It's a camera. Who was waiting for it? Who has been saving money for this under the X-mas tree? Nobody, I'm afraid. Casio could have well been releasing their own interpretation of the iPad or a new clock-radio, nobody would have noticed it.
UnChatNoir: Yes Nikon, what are you doing? After wandering a very fuzzy road of big, bulky and even bad DSLR's like the D600 I switched to the Fuji X-system.
I Didn't regret it for a minute, Fuji easily outperforms almost every Nikon equipped with the mainstream lenses and zooms, even FX.
Now this DF should wake up our 'wow, a Nikon' feeling again. I don't know. I expected a bit more than just this 16MP retro-attempt to get convinced in your brand again.
After your crappy D600, I fully lost all confidence btw. Do something real for your believers, come f.i. with a credible mirror less range.
60% of the camera's have the problem.
Yes Nikon, what are you doing? After wandering a very fuzzy road of big, bulky and even bad DSLR's like the D600 I switched to the Fuji X-system.
bafford: Great job Fuji.
I am going to buy into a fullframe mirrorless system soon. With that kind of customer support you made my decision easy which company will have my business. Can't wait till Fuji announces their fullframe camera.
I hope you don't mean Sony or Leica. Pay a lot more, and get twice the weight. But not twice the quality, it's already there, in the heart of all X-series. The whole FF-hype is completely artificial and not required to get the best quality. Over a few year, nobody will still understand why the world was looking this way. For me FF doesn't need to be there in the X-series, give us the organic sensor.
austin55: Fuji is a innovative company that also has the humility and customer appreciation to listen. Something Canon and Nikon quit doing long ago. I have my last Nikon DSLR shoot next Saturday, and then it goes on the block. This will be my next purchase without hesitation. It is what people like Zack Arias, David Hobby, and Trey Ratcliffe have already recognized. Bigger, heavier and more expensive, is not better (for many applications) any longer. Nikon and Canon are becoming dinosaurs and unless they change, are headed down the path toward extinction, (at least in market share.) Sony, Fuji, Panny and Oly are much more innovative these days.
Yes, indeed, with the D600 Nikon listened, now there's the D610. No more Nikon again. And Canon is hardly better.
white shadow: Quality wise, this zoom should be quite similar to any consumer DSLR zoom of this focal length out there.
My only concern is the size of this lens which is not much smaller than that of a DSLR zoom. Looking at it, if one were to attach this to the X-M1, for example, it would not balance well thus affecting handling. This size of it will best be attached to a DSLR size body.
In such a situation, the micro 4/3 zooms are made to better size. Even the Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6 is only slightly bigger but it covers up to 600mm equivalent. The Lumix 45-175mm f/4-5.6 is quite small for its focal length.
If one is going mirrorless, the combo must be small otherwise we might as well use a DSLR.
When you look at the IQ, the league in which this lens plays is not the entry level DSLR zoom, but those that are already big & heavy. You're right it makes the X-Pro1+XF55-200 combo not the most compact on the market, but it's a dream to work with and I'm not changing it for any 4/3 zoom...
Expat Nomad: Nice examples. I wonder if you could add some people portraits?
I'm liking that extra stop that Fuji seems to be building in. Loving the 18-55 for this reason.
If anyone yet has the 55-200, I'd love to know how fast it focuses (given Fuji camera AF performance).
I don't have the 18-55, but all primes except the XF23mm and, of course new 27mm. I find the XF14mm the best lens in AF behavior, XF55-200 behaves very well. the XF60 is still the worst. About the low light behavior, I'm always wondering which kind of pictures people are trying to make in the dark.. My Nikon didn't excel in this either, maybe one or two lucky shots but all the rest out of focus, no doubt. Are some maybe trying to achieve the impossible?
I've been using the XF55-200 for almost two months now. Always found that the Fuji X AF-discussion was a bit over the top, likely by some that never used the camera at all. Regarding this lens, there has not been one moment that I thought 'AF is too slow', camera and lens worked fine for me with a result that was nothing less than excellent. Previously owned Nikon, I'm not going to make any assessment about them, but you'll need to dig deep in your wallet to get the same kind of result and prepare for a very sore shoulder.
Pix Man: It is about time Apple released Aperture 4. The current version is old and desperately needs updating. I don't want to shift to LR but unless they shape up, we will soon have no choice.
Come on Apple!
Modern to need lens correction? Photography has become a feature-rich but optically poor business. Say as it is, a lot of people of my generation will confirm that in the 70's, quite a few of the big ones made indeed more decent glass than they do now. Cheapish, that is the word: what you can't do first time right is to be fixed by algorithms, no matter what the side-effects of this approach are. Sorry, I don't believe in this kind of nonsense, leave it for the LR-fans.