Excellent, a fun idea to make a serious point maybe?
To those who "poo poo" the pictures......try another life :)
Really? I have looked at several now and can see some nasty artifacts I assume are JPG'ing but look a lot like camera shake also......not as happy as I was really wanting to be looking at these samples.
Is there something wrong with this image (0098), seems to either be camera shake or JPEG artifact blurring, I was hoping for much better although not judging the camera on just one dodgy looking pic.
bossnas: Pure photography? LOL! Digital photography more like.
Pure photography is using light sensitive materials that you can hold in your hand, cameras that don't need batteries to function. That's taking things back to the root of the invention of photography, pure photography. Making images without the need of a computer, making prints without the need of a printer or inks. That's pure photography!
Suave, there were quite a few SLRs that had selenium cell meters, not a battery in sight! Maybe you do not go back that far? ;)
It's nice to dream, but if it's true and it looks and handles as well as an FM/FE/Nikkormat etc......I'll advance order it tomorrow, hear that Nikon?
Now go make it!
Looks like WEX just got seven new orders :)
A sensible and considered article, but will it be appreciated amongst all the gear junkies?
AngryCorgi: Really wish Fuji would go back to bayer filters on their sensors. At the very least offer ONE interchangeable bayer option for its really sweet X system. The IQ of RAW files with this idiotic xtrans filter still is way behind bayer-filtered 16MP sensors. Cameralabs.com illustrates this very well with their X-M1 review and resolution results. The EP-5 and GF6 even blow it away in JPEG and RAW. Please, Fuji, see the light and bring us a "B" camera that uses your "X" mount!!
Looking at those results I think you are mistaking contrast for sharpness. There appears to be more fine detail in the Xe-1 files.
Ridiculous.........I think Fuji have already shown they can do this better at a not inconsiderable cost saving.
It is such a shame the Fuji split image system does not work the same as the old film way, I tried the Fuji at a show and found the split image implementation to be very messy as the image is out of focus until lined up (obviously as only sees through the lens). The whole point of the old split image was that you could see two pin sharp images moving into line as you focused so critical focus was easy as you lined up an edge in view, when the two "parts" are blurred its basically a bit of a naff split image system. I understand the only way to implement this is to use a real optical system, so why call it what it isn't?
Doesn't stop me wanting one of these beauties though, lovely little camera.
Marc Rogoff: This is not only a D600 problem but apparently the D800 has the same issue. In fact my D3X has terrible dust issues - very frustrating that Olympus seems to have solved the dust issue yet Nikon with all their R&D money cant sort this out...
Well I consider my studio to be pretty dusty being within an engineering building and I change the lenses on my D3X several times a day and am using apertures smaller than f32 virtually all the time, I have never seen a dust issue on mine, I guess your just unlucky.
Maybe somebody needs to do the exact same test but with the mirror locked up (I assume it can be locked?), at least the mirror mechanism could be eliminated as the cause if it still persists.
Without wishing to wade through every post here, am I the only one who thinks it is a bit odd that when zooming out the veiwfinder frame line magnification cannot revert to the standard magnification and show the true coverage without having to hold the button for two seconds? Or is this a feature that is implemented as an option but not reviewed?
ChristianHass: Amazing. $2100 is £1300 with the current conversion rate, so the £1955 UK price is "only" a 50% markup for Europe. Good job.I know sales tax is part of it, but 50% is ridiculous.
Same old same old, UK (Europe) is the cash cow for the far east manufacturers, the US is the establishing/positional market, the US buyer builds the market and we feed it.
Dr GP: Seems to me this is a more functional version of the X1Pro? Smaller, faster focus? (OVF is useless in anycase because it seems to amplify focus issues).
Any benefit of X1 Pro over XE1?
Benefit of the XE-1 is the EVF.............
dummygj: Camera still lacks face detection. Because I would miss it, I shall not buy it!
I guess the clue is in your name :)
If you really need face detection, then this certainly is not the camera for you anyway.
B64: Nice camera, the smaller size and lower price in comparison to the X-Pro1 makes it way more interesting.
I noticed one odd thing though, in the side-by-side comparison of the top plate (page 3 of the preview). The film plane marker (or should I say: sensor plane marker) on the X-E1 seems to be closer to the lens mount than the one on the X-Pro1. I would have thought that the distance of the lens mount to the sensor surface should be the same for all cameras with the same lens mount. So the question is, on which of the two cameras is the marker correct?
Nah, it looks to me that the XE-1 is tilted up slightly where as the Pro is laying flat, its just a perspective effect.
Looks like a lovely camera, and the EVF (on personal inspection) will be the deal maker or breaker for me, but I feel it will be more than a match for an optical finder, and this comes from an old lag who grew up on Leicas and Contax rangefinders.
Well done Fuji!
MartinaB: Just beautiful. Photography is amazing now, but it was amazing back when. I have done some big format work and there is something intangible , hard to describe about it. If you can go see the show! If you can, buy an old 8x10 and try this film. Be patient and you will be rewarded.
Its something for students to see.......but I had enough of Polaroid film carrying around a 5x4 MPP and huge Gitzo tripod when I was in my early twenties photographing architecture and ancient monuments, Polaroid was just a tool to verify and prove a shot, the real stuff was locked away in dark slides waiting for a dip in some D76........got to laugh though, some of those shots look just like stuff taken by me and my fellow students in the 70's in art college, definately better parties then!
Why all the speculation and brickbats?
They just successfully landed a vehicle that will drive around on the surface of Mars, analyse data and send pictures back we could only dream of when we walked on the moon in 1969......you have to trust they know what they are doing.
Better get back to the Nikanon next generation rumour mill, you have more chance of being listened to in there! :)
Zilvinas K: People should look back to the fundamentals of what 35mm format is all about. It is fotojournalism, all about compact size and high iso. If you are a seroius studio shooter you go with medium format, 36 MP on 35mm format is irrelevant. If you are a photojournalist, then you choose clearly unsurpassed high iso best performer D700 (dpreview tests clearly show that, you can't beat laws of physics with a size of photosites). If you neither but a pixel peeper with money then D800 is for you. Nikon has clearly lost a logical path of development. Focus on optics not pixels.
@ Zilvinas K......Twoddle........I have been a professional for over 40 years and started with Nikons in PJ then 5x4 in the studio and on location for architectural work, I now specialise in engineering work both studio and location, all I can say is thank heaven for D3X and D800E cameras, format is virtually irrelevent, it boils down to the right tool for the job your doing, no secret art about it, its just a job!