krassphoto: That's a very cool looking camera, but the price tag... kind of too much for the nostalgia.. there are much better choices for almost $3K.
@HowaboutRAW - are you Batman that you require only high ISO? that seems to be the only argument when it comes to D4 sensor.
hexxthalion: Can see that Nikon fanboys strongly defend this abomination. Nikon has lost the plot, get over it!
@HowaboutRAW - does it? what exactly are you getting after 5 years (release of D700) ?
vFunct: Only talented people can use this camera.
Untalented people have to use Sony or Canon or Olympus.
Also, it is a mark of amateurs to use cute baby mirror less cameras.
Aww how cute - a newb photographer with a mirror less camera!
Maybe one day the mirror less camera photographer will grow up and use a Reflex system like the big boys do.
Yay! We're rooting for you, cute little mirror less camera kiddos!
@vFunct I thought that they provide kids proper education these days… what a brain dump :)
Can see that Nikon fanboys strongly defend this abomination. Nikon has lost the plot, get over it!
Dave Luttmann: This ain't no FE2 or F3 in size. Clunky, fat, darn shame. Glad I moved to Fuji
@ sandy b - have you used one recently? i guess you haven't
searun: Which name resonates with photographers? Ricoh will always sound like a copy machine company to me. Pentax is/was a photographic equipment company. Never owned any Pentax, but I would have been comfortable doing so. Ricoh?
Ricoh GR (I guess I don't need to add more)
moire moire moire - do you people shoot charts and brick walls? Go out and shoot the real stuff not this masturbation exercises :)
Basalite: You are better off with a Sigma DP1 or 2 Merrill series camera for the low ISO range and something else for high ISO shooting and you'll have plenty of cash left over. For the low ISO shots you'd have by far much better image quality with the Sigmas. It's stunning and shameful how DPPreview ignores the newest Sigmas.
that's my setup - DP2M + Fuji X-Pro1. But I am thinking about RX1R but I'm yet to see the true benefits over X-Pro1, let's be honest, I'm not sure it's that much better (I'm not denying that it's not).
jennyrae: Ricoh, Fuji, Samsung, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus make RX1R and RX100 II Sonys overhyped products of the year. truth make Sony cuckoos very mad.
".Sure, the DP2m is super-sharp and detailed, but its high (exaggerated?) micro-contrast often produces rough skin tones, making it a mixed success for people photography."
I beg to differ. It captures what's there, you are just not used to see so much detail from Bayer based cameras - that's all it is.
maniax: If you really want a leica, get a M6. It will cost as much as a rebel and although its not digital, it will make wonderful photos.
No it won't, you might, with it.
SunnyFlorida: $900 for a Manual Focus 32mm F/1.8 ??? Good Luck!
"And yes I have a Nikon to Fuji X body adapter so that's how I tested a Zeiss manual focus lens on an X body"
you see??? there you said it, you are comparing ZF glass vs Fuji's lenses. Let me dig a bit in my memory but as far as I remember every single ZF glass costs twice as much as a Fuji's X lens.
Topic is Zeiss Touit lenses vs Fuji's X lenses - is that tiny little difference worth the extra money? I'd rather have lens sharp wide open than have slightly better colours. After all that's why you use fast prime with this angle of view - to be able to shoot wide open in low light.
And as a proud ZF owner, honestly, do samples from these Touit lenses have the same 'pop' as you get from your ZF lenses? (they don't have that pop like my old Planar ZM)
@HowaboutRAW - from all the comparisons I've seen so far Zeiss isn't sharper than Fuji's lenses and although it's got some of the magic of Zeiss as we know it (my old Plannar 50 at least has it) I haven't seen single conclusion where reviewer said he would replace his Fuji X lens with this Zeiss - not for the money and from looking at the samples I haven't seen that magic there myself. Don't forget, Fuji's lenses are brilliant and Fuji has been making lenses for Hasselblad and also pro lenses for film makers (check BBC for example)
ybizzle: Fuji X-Pro1 or XE01. Nuff Said.
and your comment regarding Fuji X lenses is based on???
hexxthalion: another forgettable gray plastic box from Canon - why do they bother?
I do not deny that this will be commercially successful product, it's their lowest dSLR. But wouldn't it be nice if Canon actually release something that would make you want it, something that will make you say 'wow, this is really cool'.
another forgettable gray plastic box from Canon - why do they bother?
Emacs23: They looks nice in tiny size, but once viewed in larger one (3rd picture in the sequence) XTrans issues become obvious: the RX1 shows much better picture for the same dimensions as does any properly PPed bayer camera.
The sample you uploaded to dropbox - that's from IR, those are JPEG files are they not? and for some reason when I compare NEX6 with X-Pro1 I do not see any advantage of bayer over x-trans - not sure what it is you're on about. But either way it proves nothing since these are OOC JPEG files, so that's comparison of in-camera JPEG engines.
I haven't done such 'scientific' comparison when I was deciding which camera to get. I went out and shot few photographs and then looked at them, looked at what can be done with the RAW data, looked at how much PP it would need to reach desired finish and so on. And I was surprised because I wanted to get originally NEX7 because of the focus peaking and ended up with X-Pro1 instead without focus peaking - oh well :)
@ Emacs23 - I'm pretty good with PP software, been graphic designer for 15 years (started with PS 3) and have been using LR since first BETA, Aperture from first version and lately I've been using C1. I shoot only RAW, not JPEG so every single capture I decide to keep goes through PP.
@ Emacs23 - if your comment regarding Sony's 16MP sensor and NEX cameras was true, I'd be using NEX6/7 now instead of X-Pro1. I don't have unlimited source of money so before I buy something I test it myself (beauty of return policies here in the UK) and I can tell you right now that X-Pro1 produces better results than NEX cameras - those are my findings with my subjects of photography and don't even get me started on the usability and overall easy of use/satisfaction of taking photographs.
ashwins: Nice set of pictures.
X100s seems to have the tendency to overexpose a little, though.
@ Wye - what's your obsession with DR modes on X series cameras? I don't get it, I have X100 and X-Pro1 and I never use DR modes, shoot RAW and you can get the same result, problem solved and you are not limited only to look given to you by JPEG engine.
slncezgsi: I do not know, the JPEGs are not too impressive and the ACR conversions still carry a lot of errors (color issues around share small details like hair). I guess it will take some time until raw converters will be able to get all the sensor is (potentially) capable of.
I am looking forward to see it with X100 side-by-side once the X100s review is out.
@ Emacs23 - how much of that 'significantly better base iso performance' can you see on your prints?
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review