Class A: The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).
Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.
The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).
So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?
Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?
BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.
K3 fan by chance?
Earlier in this thread I asked those critical of the G1Xii image quality to provide realistic alternatives. I've been trying to answer that question as well and this is *my* best alternative:
Sony A6000 with Zeiss-designed 16-70mm f/4 lens (24-105 equivalent).
weight: 22.9 oz (body+lens) vs 21 oz (G1Xii+evf), an insignificant difference. For comparison, my 5D3 + 25-105 f/4L is 57.1 oz, around 2.5x heavier than either set up.
bulk: With the lens, the A6000 is about twice as deep as a G1Xii with lens retracted. Other dimensions are pretty close.
cost (US$): $1650 for body+lens vs $1160 for G1Xii+EVF+lens hood+filter holder. For me, cost is not the primary factor in my decision.
FWIW, my primary use case is landscape photography involving longer day hikes w/ significant elevation gain. If I'm going to hike 12 miles and ascend 5000 ft to get a shot, the extra bulk of the a6000 would seem easily justified by increased IQ and resolution. We'll see how both cameras actually test out.
ThePartaker: Hi Jeff,Thank you so much for processing the image of the statue and IMG_0130 into IMG_0130.acr. you did a great job on them, and this show some of what this sensor and lens combination can do. Can you put IMG_0130 back up so we can see the comparison between them?This is a good example of what can be achieved beyond the JPEG and is rarely shown so clearly.
Canon seem to have done a good job matching such a small lens to the sensor, but it does not seem to be a new sensor, is it the same as the old GX1?Thanks for all your hard work - you clearly seem to be enjoying this camera - think I will be buying it - look forward to the full review.
If memory serves, the original 0130 was processed with DPP and was not an out-of-camera JPG.
Jeff Keller: Hi everyone, now that ACR 8.4 is out, I reconverted the 'torture tunnel' shot and also tried my hand at the ISO 8000 indoor statue photo. Wide-open macro shot still to come.
The 'torture tunnel' shot is much improved. This really highlights how difficult it is to draw broad conclusions from a handful of shots that might catch your eye for some reason or other.
What a difference the ACR conversion made...much better.
Zvonimir Tosic: Image processing is good, but the lens does not excite. Leica's lens in X-Vario, or Ricoh's lens in the GR, are both miles ahead of this camera.But, I believe, if Canon wanted to implement a really good lens, the package would cost twice as much. It would be worthwhile, though. It would be good Canon comes out with a kick-@ss enthusiast camera, not another budget 'zoom': they have plenty of budget cameras already.
Different strokes, I guess. The lens is what draws me to this camera. 24-120mm f/2-3.9...those are some amazing specs if the lens performs. I read posts that say "for that cost, you could get 'x' instead. 'X' doesn't exist. Not at this size and weight. I've looked. The RX100II seems closest but I haven't seen anything from that camera that suggests it offers higher IQ. An A6000? With what lens(es)? An X100s? Not the same concept. It's great to sit and criticize and if this camera has obvious engineering flaws I'll join in; but the fact that it falls short when compared to someone's physics-defying fantasy camera is meaningless.
JapanAntoine: Thanks but would like to see more shots in dark situations, with ISO pumped up, or portrait shots with wide aperture, to evaluate the bokeh.Thank you!
Have you seen these, Bill?
Mikael Risedal: there is nothing new with this camera, same old sensor tech, inferior color resolution and dynamic range compared to modern sensors from Sony,Toshiba,Panasonic, Aptina etc
I totally share your frustration with Canon's lack of innovation with sensor tech—particularly dynamic range—but my expectations were set accordingly. Certainly you didn't think that Canon would debut significant new sensor tech in a PowerShot camera.
That said, if we can get close to [Canon] DSLR performance out of a camera this size with what is for me a spectacular lens then that is certainly something new and exciting. I wonder if your frustration isn't affecting your judgement.
Thematic: Agree with Mikael Risedal - even IMG_0043 has a blurry water color look to it. Very poor for the money.
Totally missed that. Yes, that could certainly be what I was seeing.
I've seen some G1X II macro shots at wide open apertures that look really soft. I was hoping to see some similar shots here to help clarify whether this was operator error or a characteristic of this camera.
In the upper right hand corner the white portions of the image seem to have an odd halo around them. Is that what you are referring to?
Mikael Risedal: what the camera can do?
IMG_0130.dppblown high lights, no color resolution in the shadows , inferior DRCrappy dynamic range
I paused on that image too. Canon is the king of limited dynamic range for sure but this is a tough situation for any camera. I think a LR conversion with a little clarity will address the shadows. The highlights don't look completely recoverable.
tlinn: The very interesting discussion of "equivalent" aperture on page 1 left me with a question. I totally understand that f/2.8 on a smaller sensor provides less control over DOF than the same aperture on a larger sensor. But Jeff seems to state that there is also a difference in the amount of light let in. Is he simply stating the obvious—that more photons are allowed through the larger opening thereby improving image quality? If so, am I correct in assuming that the conversion table of equivalent apertures only seeks to account for the difference in DOF?
Thanks for all the replies. I'm hoping for a little more clarification. I understand that we are talking about equivalent focal lengths and that the size of the aperture is going to be different in absolute terms depending sensor size. I totally get that the larger aperture is going to be letting in more light (hence my comment about more photons) spread out over a larger area—even though it is the same amount of light on a per-unit-of-measure basis. My assumption has been that the benefit of this would be lower noise (or "improved image quality") and that the amount of this benefit would be hard to quantify because of differences in sensor design and quality. From some of the replies it appears we are assuming a perfect sensor, right? Is there another benefit to the larger sensor besides lower noise (DOF aside)? I'm still wondering if I am missing something.
The very interesting discussion of "equivalent" aperture on page 1 left me with a question. I totally understand that f/2.8 on a smaller sensor provides less control over DOF than the same aperture on a larger sensor. But Jeff seems to state that there is also a difference in the amount of light let in. Is he simply stating the obvious—that more photons are allowed through the larger opening thereby improving image quality? If so, am I correct in assuming that the conversion table of equivalent apertures only seeks to account for the difference in DOF?
Just Ed: Not as revealing at the recent interview with Nikon execs, but useful none the less. Both seemed to point out that the camera market and the public's desires do indeed differ by geographical region.
It is interesting that both Canon and Nikon express that mirror-less is less popular in the US than elsewhere. Possibly Canon was right not to put much energy into mirrorless technology, at least yet.
As to camera size, I find uses for both by medium sized 6D and small sized Sl-1. Each shines, but in different situations imo.
I don't know how you can judge the public's response to mirrorless without offering a mirrorless option that is similarly equipped in terms of features and performance. (I'm obviously not referring to the optical viewfinder.) Canon's offering was particularly pathetic. It was late to market and uncompetitive. Then they complain that sales are slow and inventories are high. No kidding.
Donnie G: "Canon should do things the same way that Sony does". REALLY? Sony is closing 65 stores in the U.S. and eliminating 1,000 jobs. They call it restructuring or cost control. Others might call it RETREAT. Canon controls their costs by selling specific products to the regions of the globe where there is an actual demand for that product, (ie., the EOS M2). Thus, no excess inventory and no wasted marketing dollars. Which is the better cost control strategy? Don't know? Sony does!
"Canon should make their CMOS chips the same way that Sony does, because the Sony chips are way better". REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs. How many Sony Alpha, DSLR, SLT, NEX, etc., owners feel as strongly about the Sony brand?
"REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs."
You have just described Canon's biggest problem. No need to innovate; rest on your laurels...err...rely on brand identity. Most consumers don't notice anyway, right? Maybe not at first, but early adopters and geeks play a big part in brand identity and Canon's may well be eroding. I can tell you that I am one of those 70 million Canon users, one who gets asked daily for camera recommendations, and I no longer recommend Canon unequivocally.
As for the Sony chip design, it is demonstrably and objectively superior and by no small margin—whether it makes a difference to you or not.
Jon Lewis: Hi AllThe price doesn't bother some people but the caperbilitysof the camera do the MkIII wasn't enough of an upgradeAnd a 1DX is a bit too much of a sports camera so many are waiting
Depending on what and how you shoot, the MkIII could be a huge upgrade. It was for me. It gave me everything I wanted except for improved image quality and smaller size/lower weight. (Canon has really become complacent relative to their competition when it comes to sensor tech.) The AF system in the 5D3 and 1DX is a juggernaut. Very very impressive.
D1N0: Digital camera's haven't improved very much over the past few years. The megapixelrace is over, there is no must have new technology. The improvements in iq are minimal compared compared to 2010 when the D7000 and K-5 came out. So people are not so eager to replace their camera's. A new sensor technology would help, but there is not much room for improvement, unless you can drastically enhance high ISO performance.
I would argue that there is huge room for improvement in sensor tech and Sony has proven this with every new iteration of their EXMOR sensor. Dynamic range. Dynamic range. Dynamic range. And, I agree, high ISO performance.
coroander: Let's look at apples and apples, since the article provides so many incomparable numbers. income from sales of ILCs:Canon -1.7%Nikon -6%Fuji (unknown, ILCs not reported separately)Olympus +5%
It's quite possible (even likely) mirrorless sales income has increased over the past 12 months, while income from DSLRs has decreased.
It's hard to know with Nikon or Canon. Nikon's mirrorless system with its tiny sensor is pretty pedestrian from an enthusiast's POV. Similarly, Canon's late arrival to the ILC market with a substandard offering make it hard to know if sales in this segmant are slow because of economic conditions or the simple fact that their offerings stink.