white shadow: I am looking for an excellent APS-C size mirrorless camera which can out perform a micro 4/3 camera in overall usage. The numerous succession of NEX has not been successful due to its poor lens collection and its "unfriendly" photographer user interface / Menu system. The Fuji X series could offer some hopes. However, it too falls short of expectation in many areas, many of which were pointed out in the reviews.
I like the size of the X-M1 but the slow AF speed and many other compromises cause me to hesitate buying this camera despite it getting a gold award.
Some has attributed the other problems to the X-trans sensor which I wouldn't disagree.
I think you are being too anal retentive here. Just buy one and enjoy using it.
thx1138: Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.
Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.
So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?
There is no "coulda shoulda woulda". THere are TWO.. I repeat TWO higher priced models with viewfinders built in. AND they are not even expensive.
showmeyourpics: I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon in the larger sensors sector, but they keep doing a heck of a good job creating market differentiation with very portable and feature-rich, reasonably priced cameras supported by a strong array of good lenses. Like the FIAT 500, these cameras also look very cute. I come from military electronic engineering and quality management, and can split a technical hair in 16. I am also up to my neck in fine art photography to satisfy the right side of my brain. When I pick up a camera like this, I can't help being in awe of what they are able to pack into such a small body. I surely can mention some stuff that I would like and is not there, but the thought of the photographic possibilities that they offer is overwhelming. It makes me feel like dropping everything and run out to take the best pictures I can.
They can if they decide to go full frame. Olympus knows how to make great bodies, lenses, and photography systems.They will be a great alternative to Nikon/Canon.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
Except in real world usage. Missed focus, slow focus, slow shooting. The OM-D is like a sports car. Quick as hell.
Ferling: With anything goes these days; articulating screens, larger sensors, and better EVF, etc. All those features that give one pause to reconsider dumping their DSLR, (trust me, I'd like to dump mine when I eventually retire). Is it time to consider that the differences between a modern PS and DSLR are mute, and we should start asking for more?
My main concern with the habit of pro use, even though I'm shooting non-pro shots, is what capability and IQ can I get when I switch it to "M"? Whether I'm shooting a DSLR or a PS, the time, motions and efforts of composing and taking good shots are the same. So, at the end of the day, when I'm loading up the images into the LR, will I happy with the end results for those same efforts?
Mine is not an isolated issue for pros. I've met many novices in various amusement parks and on family outings whom relented and bought a DLSR, and their reason is pretty much the same: They want quality results for their efforts.
In daylight shots, there's really no real separation between high quality p&s and DSLR. The only difference is if you like nice buttery bokeh you have to use a DSLR with appropriate lens. Indoors, a different story.
photobeans: A lot of complaints about image quality here. Let's keep this in perspective. First, these are snapshots. Second, the lighting and selection of scenery is poor. Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep.
I live on Earth like you. I meant to say "Third, using a 35mm lens for portrait is really no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep". It's true, look at it on your computer and it doesn't really look much better when not viewing at 100%, as compared to a decent small sensored camera. I can look at this gallery and someone could've told me it was shot with a cannon s100 and I would believe them.
A lot of complaints about image quality here. Let's keep this in perspective. First, these are snapshots. Second, the lighting and selection of scenery is poor. Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep.
PenGun: Takes ugly pictures. Lots of the new cameras do. The Sony's are particularly bad.
I'm not sure whether it's the photographer, poor eyesight, or just the processing.
Nothing here even threatens my Fuji X-E1, why is that?
Ridiculous. The gallery is just a collection of quick snapshots. A good photographer can take compelling photographs with just about any camera, including cell phone cams.
the bar jpegs look a bit muddy, the RAW will be better.
SulfurousBeast: Close call, All 3, except RX100II (for the sensor size) are good. But there is now no real advantage of APS-C compared to M43. Oly EP5 still looks warmer and slightly sharper of all. But that's down to processing. Anything more, we are just 'nitpicking' here. All these camera's have come a long way even compared to the D200, D300, 40D & 50D (that I still have). Did they not take good Pics? I am not comparing to Full Frame at all.
I'm not sure why you think the e-p5 is sharper. I have good eyes and the GX7 is easily sharper than all the other cameras. THis is likely due to the lack of AA filter on the GX7.
Looking at the RAW, the GX7 sensor compares very well against the nex-6. The images are also sharper than all the other cameras, likely because they removed the AA filter.
km25: When you look at the photo of the women, you can see how their standard of life was so hard on them. I will bet that women is no more then thirty and if you were to see a pictue of here ten years before she would look like a young flower.After you see photographs as these you should realize it is not container, it is the content.
Well, women weren't obsessed with make-up and facial creams back then. My mom who came from a dirt poor Asia looked like 40 something when she was 30 years old when I look at some of our pictures.
Better to have reviews on products than no reviews at all. Common flaws are revealed when more than 1 reviewer states them.
AngryCorgi: Actually, GIMP is very powerful. The only reason I use PS CS is for the cleaner interface. It's not worth getting bent over a barrel on though. I can always use my old CS2 + GIMP + RPP combo and get what I need. It's not as efficient, but I use this software for my own pleasure, not for creation of revenue from the products. They ought to factor that into their logic. There are a boat-load of people that do not receive financial gain for the use of PS CS nor want to, but do want to (a) keep their skills up at home and (b) like the added flxibililty of PS over PSE. They appear to be ignoring that LARGE group of home users.
It's a shame. The deblur feature was about to get me to plop down another bunch of bills for a new PS too. Oh well.
I've been using GIMP for years. GIMP is definitely no substitute for Photoshop. GIMP is severely unintuitive and hinders your productivity. Back in the early 90s when I started using Photoshop I could just take hold of the mouse and start using it without ever read a PS book. You try to do that with GIMP and you'll be scratching your head to eternity.
yabokkie: you have to trade off peripheral image quality for lightweightwhich always comes at a cost.
with the same sensor, image quality will be the equivalent of a full frame. The only cost to light weight is ergonomics and control
Looks like a great successor to a great camera. I'm done with DSLRs though, would buy a Sony NEX 6 over this. NEX and m43 cameras are wonderfully sized and the perform good enough.
Been a Nikon DSLR user for 6 years with 2 bodies. Switched to m43 and not looking back. For the majority of us who do casual photography, m43 can't be beat with small bodies and small lenses. Never enjoyed photography more than I have with m43.
There are a number of m43 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic selling at bargain basement prices. Going to be hard sell for the producer of this Kodak camera.
JacquesBalthazar: These Fuji X offers, this one in particular, are so tempting for old but increasingly broke leicaphiles such as me. So familiar and re-assuring. At the same time, they annoy me by playing this much on the retro/pseudo vintage chords in terms of design cues. This is 2013. Why are we trying to pretend to be in 1956?
The feature list and tech innards are fantastic. But the design references....am I the only one to be bothered?
If you don't like retro design, there's plenty of larger plasticky Nikon and Canon models that won't fit in a smaller bag due to large grips and tall protruding optical viewfinders.
This is such a beautiful camera. I want to hold it, admire it, and use it.