This type of lenses is weird on a mirrorless. It feels a bit like using a small two-seater sportscar for moving furniture. I own the X-Pro1 with a 55-200 lens and it's far from ideal. Beyond the fact it feels very unhandy and unbalanced, there is just no way it has the same competences as the magnificent AF-S 70-200mm F2.8 VRII on a FF Nikon. I tried to use the Fujinon for event shooting, it was hunting in low light all the time, couldn't get focus in quite a few cases - a complete disaster and it ruined many shots. DOF management / object separation capabilities are absolutely not in the same league. The Nikon is fluent, powerful performer and at its limits also much sharper than the Fujinon. A lot of people are still dreaming that their mirrorless solution can do better than Pro-DSLR-gear, well it isn't, but of course, I won't deny it can be in any given workflow a perfect lightweight complement for some particular purposes.
NDT0001: I WILL NEVER GIVE MY MONEY TO THE THIEVING NIKON CLOUD BASED MODEL. ITS ROBBERY AND HOLDING YOUR FILES TO RANSOM. BOYCOTT NIKON!!!!
I think that applies to quite a few cloud models. Not the least that whole vapor-ware Creative Cloud with leased licenses story from Adobe. The software boys are selling us concepts we just don't want. Next one will be Apple (in the Aperture & iPhoto aftermath). I'm more and more looking towards Capture One.
LJohnK2: - No mask function- No blemish removal - No CCP- No generic clarity slider- No, No, No,
Hey Nikon com'on up here to Canada.... we have Community College Programs that have 2nd year Co-op students that can produce better than this.
What the hell is Nikon thinking !!!....seriously Nikon just open source your ADL algorithm so real programs like Lightroom can include it and be done with this.
Not to mention how SLOW it is.
The reason why I stepped into Mac many years ago was there multimedia / image / video competences, also in the excellent software they were providing on this same platform and the degree of integration no one else could offer. I'm an Adobe hater for many reasons, one of them is their licensing model which is only financially strangling everyone that ever bought into them. I also never liked LR, was even never impressed by the RAW-support for some cameras (like Fuji X and even some Nikons that performed far better with the own Nikon software). Aperture made somehow a golden difference. After the Final Cut X disaster release, we now face another weird Apple decision. What do they want to be - a cutting edge company, or 'just another' Samsung? What's next - are they maybe going to announce over a few years that OS X and iOS will no longer be supported, everything will run on Windows and/or Android? Steve Jobs, please, return - Tim Cooke is no longer the captain we trust.
peevee1: How come they need a firmware update for every camera to support a new lens? And what other lens makers are supposed to do, who cannot upgrade a firmware in every Fujifilm camera as soon as they release a new lens? And what will happen to old bodies when they go out of support eventually - no compatibility with new lenses for them?Seems like a bad standard.
'the lenses work anyway, just not as well...' - this sounds as a very professional support? There is something strange with Fuji - every time someone makes a less positive remark about these X-series - we all experienced from day 1 this very strange R&D-concept of doing never the right thing first - the fan crowd goes nervous. I'm a day 1 user, to be honest, there are days I like the system, but also moments I detest the issues, problems, quirks that I have NEVER encountered with any other system. Even firmware-updates require sometimes a bit of manipulation, as I experienced with this last one on Mac. That's reality. It's like an exotic sportscar, where the driver needs to be an engineer and garage technician at the same time, to keep the thing on the road and yes, there are also a lot of fans for this type of cars. Fuji's firmwares are a story of its down, and who doesn't see there is something very weird with it, is blind.
+1. It doesn't seem to be a bad standard, it IS one. A serious design flaw, related to the way these lenses are focussing. Fujifilm tries to keep up some masquerade: each new lens update also contains other, completely unimportant features that are being changed and enabled to make it look 'generic'. The X-Pro1 has gone through about 15 FW updates now, well this must be a sad note in the Guiness book of records. It is no Kaizen, not at all, but poor R&D like a lot in this X-system, that regarding firmware and user interface is still not the most stable around. Also in the opposite sense, if I want to use a first gen lens on a 2016 X-series... what will happen, hard to say, if there is no updating done anymore.
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.
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.
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...