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.
I do not see why you need lens databases. The best quality lenses just don't need corrections, even contrary.
historianx: I love Aperture, it's an intutive and fun workflow, but really if they don't upgrade it soon they're going to force my hand to move to Capture Pro One.
I do not see why upgrading a good, stable software is such a necessity. Never change a winning team ;-) . It is not because Adobe likes to release one new version after the other, that Apple has to do the same. For me, Aperture is working fine, it is still lightyears ahead of the far overpraised LR in many aspects AND delivering better RAW conversions in quite a few cases.
There are many things to say about this update methodology. Yes, we users like it that after about 15 months our tools get new competences and enter a new life. Yes, we find it pleasing that Fuji keeps on listening to us. Yes, we get the confirmation now that the risk we took to buy into the X-system has turned into a different feeling now that Fuji has one of the most competent mirrorless concepts on the market. But... what we regret is that many of the problems we experienced should have been solved earlier. While I persisted colleagues have abandonned the X-Pro1 since they were getting too tired from the AF-stories and the also poor RAW support by major software. There you made a very strategic error. There is still room for improvement not only in a broader support, but also in the quality of what the major ones achieve at this moment - we hope that in the background you keep on steering Adobe, Apple, C1 and many others to achieve even better results, as we see in Silkypix.
Rod McD: I understand why some people might want one, but it's not for me. Nor do I want the faster XF55-200, as good as it is. Or the 56/f1.2. I'm with those who think Fuji need to offer a small (ie modest speed) telephoto prime around say 85/90mm f2 or 100mm/2.8. That would provide an AF lens with some reach, a step up from the 18-55mm zoom, and still capitalize on the mirror-less advantage of small size. If I want a case full of big zooms, I may as well stay with a DSLR.
Having the XF55-200 since one week now, I changed my opinion that was pretty much in line with what you are saying. This is a killer lens, big, I admit, but very well built, a solid piece of optical engineering fully adhering to the excellent X-IQ where we got used to. After I went the 'Leica-alike' prime way for the other focals, it's damned easy to have a zoom for tele-purposes and I've got the impression that the optical stabilization technology is more advanced than other similar systems I've used. Fuji is having a lot of experience in this area from the Fujinon video lenses.
Hasa: The Fuji lineup looks wonderful but a tad expensive.Maybe it could be compared to the Nikon 70-200mm F4 ?On the D600 the combo is 1606 grams ~3,5 pounds vs. the 2 pound Fuji-combo.Maybe somebody would make a 1,4x TC for the Fuji ? Then it would be near F6,7 at "420mm". Maybe sharp - maybe not - there is no TC in the Fuji roadmap - just speculating :-)With the D800 + zoom + Nikon 1,7x TC I get a "340mm" F6,7 lens and yes it is sharp-sharp at effective F8. Now I have double the weight of the Fuji lens+camera but obviously I have chosen the full frame because I have "double the fun". The full frame offers more flexibility in terms of high-iso sensitivity and plenty of pixels for landscape shots. Today I shot mousetits and blue tits in the garden. After seriously cropping to these tiny birds this is what I get: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/albums/mousetit-w-70-200mmf4-tc1-7eii
To be honest, don't under estimate this Fujinon and surely don't overestimate the Nikon. The whole FF vs APS/C is far more artificial than it seems, marketeers need something to make their story and the only truth in 'double the fun' is the according weight of the Nikon stuff. You might lose some weight by the extra exercise ;-). Last but not least, someone stating that the Nikon ISO-performance is better than the Fuji X series has never seen to what the X-series are capable of. Let it be 'mirrorless compact camera's', they are top notch in any respect and truly, not a lot of the 'plastic' Nikon lenses can optically do better than the Fuji glass.
At least one company that still thinks of its user base. Thanks, Fujifilm, this camera is the best thing that happened to me in many years of photography. This is the way to get faithful clients, buying your products without looking to the competition.
UnChatNoir: It seems difficult for Leica to design a camera, more or less having the electronics on board, just up to a mainstream level. It was Jenoptik that did the job using, let me express it carefully, a bit peculiar sensors. I admit Leica stands for a solid, puristic + stylish design but so many things didn't evolve in a sense you can take this still serious at such a price level... Look at the LCD of this famous M? The data you get in the RF? Yes, their lenses are the best in class. Or is it Zeiss? It's a matter of credibility and I don't know what to think of a stripped down version of the too basic M at an outrageous price level. From a different angle: is this Mini M the ultimate proof Leica is facing a too strong competition from far more competent manufacturers? This is not really where the market has been waiting for, instead a true 'up to date' M @ half the price would have done miracles. Now I'm afraid that Fuji, Sony, Olympus,... will take over what was always so precious to Leica!
Three years ago, there was no true competition for Leica. But now high end mirror less camera's have become a hype and the competitors are far more competent technology-providers than Leica. It is not the red logo that let you make better pictures, but R&D, more advanced technology will move you into competences you did not have before. Better sensors, more sensitivity, higher ISO competences, increased dynamics vs competition, precise metering systems, overall camera speed, hi-res viewfinders and unfortunately, also AF. If Sony fits the next gen RX1-concept with interchangeable Zeiss-lenses and a decent EVF the M is in very serious trouble. If Fujifilm releases the X-Pro2, most people will look over Leica due to its price. I only mention those two but I'm sure there is a lot more in the pipeline in even the next year. Leica needs a further technology boost, lower their silly prices and partner up even more with f.i. Panasonic to achieve this.
It seems difficult for Leica to design a camera, more or less having the electronics on board, just up to a mainstream level. It was Jenoptik that did the job using, let me express it carefully, a bit peculiar sensors. I admit Leica stands for a solid, puristic + stylish design but so many things didn't evolve in a sense you can take this still serious at such a price level... Look at the LCD of this famous M? The data you get in the RF? Yes, their lenses are the best in class. Or is it Zeiss? It's a matter of credibility and I don't know what to think of a stripped down version of the too basic M at an outrageous price level. From a different angle: is this Mini M the ultimate proof Leica is facing a too strong competition from far more competent manufacturers? This is not really where the market has been waiting for, instead a true 'up to date' M @ half the price would have done miracles. Now I'm afraid that Fuji, Sony, Olympus,... will take over what was always so precious to Leica!
No brand and camera range ever received such controversial reactions in reviews than Fujifilm and its X-range. But at least, Fujifilm takes care of improvement, has been listening. The X-range has become a major product and focus for them, a cornerstone for their future in the serious, even pro segment, clear. Over a one year trajectory, the X-Pro1 has become an entirely different camera, an enjoyable product, producing an IQ that a lot of DSLR's will never match. The last finishing touch was the improved RAW-decoding in nearly all major tools now, and the release of some very fine lenses, very Leica alike. Thank you, Fujifilm, I evolved from a rather disappointed early adopter towards a huge fan of these camera's and lenses. In a more than 40 years passion, I didn't ever enjoy photography so much as now.
ralphdaily: I downloaded the free RFC/Silkypix 3 from Fuji's website and it does a completely acceptable raw conversion for these two sample files. Much better than the examples above. Of course actually using Silkypix for more than 30 minutes at a time will drive a person insane and you will plunge off the nearest ledge to your doom.
With the X-Pro1 RAF's, I'm in most of the cases not able to let ACR generate reliable results, with a truly acceptable IQ. C1 is a lot more competent, at least you can use the result, but it isn't perfect yet either, Silkypix feels to me still a bit better. Both are far better than ACR but that's not difficult to do. Shame on you, Adobe, for this type of support.