mosc: wow. That's wide. f1.8 that wide is not much slower than good FF ultra-wides in an amazingly small package. I want to see how quickly that f1.8 falls off. 18 is so wide I might need to zoom. Wow, I can't believe I just said that. 22 would have impressed. 20 would have made people take notice. 18 is just... wow.
RidgeRunner22 - No...it's not. Distortion (as in barrel distortion) is a function of each individual lens design. Perspective distortion (which I believe you are referring to) is simply a function of the angle of view combined with your distance to subject. The angle of view is only a factor in wides because you're cramming more of the scene in, but the perspective taken with this lens from a fixed position will be identical to a full frame 18mm lens. Perspective is a function of distance and distance releationships between you, the subject and the background and doesn't depend of focal length at all.
uMad: Where is the Fujinon 90mm?
It's an ultrasharp, apochromatic, beautiful lens (with 4 motors and weather resistance) and you can get it for under 800$ right now.
Furthermore this lens has earned the "best lens" award from other sides too!
Agreed. The omission of the XF 90 is a terrible oversight. I review mirrorless gear, and of the lenses I used this year, the XF 90 is the best of the bunch. It is honestly nearly a flawless lens: brilliantly sharp from wide open, exceptional bokeh, no CA, no distortion, fast and accurate AF. It's an incredible optic.
Debankur Mukherjee: excellent ......but will it clog after some non use period............I love inkjet prints but the clogging makes me sick...............
I've had clogging problems on Epson printers, but my Pro-100 hasn't had a single clogged nozzle, even if it sits for a month or so.
evangelos k: Did they really say a complete ink set is ~$660?
Because it's cheaper than a lab per print. 80mL tanks at 11 colors should yeild around 600-800 13x19" prints, or less than a buck a piece. Add $1-4 per sheet for paper and you get lab quality 13x19" prints for under $2 each and better quality than lab prints on fine art papers for around $4-5 per sheet. At 16x24, you'll be spending around $5 per print for lab quality luster. Do you know where a lab can produce a 16x24 for under $5?
I only have a 13" wide printer, so I get larger prints done at WHCC or ProDPI, but my 12x18 and smaller (most of my prints) get done at home, and the quality is astounding on good paper.
Alphabart: 1/32,000th of a second indeed. not 1/3200th which is rather a big difference
Yes, electronic shutter is rolling, like it is in almost all CMOS sensors. This makes 1/32,000 not good for action shooting, but it's still very nice for really any other type of shooting. It's wonderful to have when shooting f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses in bright sunlight when you want the background blur: no need to put on an ND filter.
pictureAngst: I think this is the first Fuji lens without any aspherical elements.
I've previously heard talk that aspherical elements, while improving some optical characteristics, can contribute to harsh bokeh - wonder if this is why Fuji went with this design?
It'll presumably also be the first not to have the retro 'Fujinon Aspherical' labelling on the lens.
The Fuji 55-140/2.8 is also non-aspherical, and bokeh is outstanding.
RichRMA: An APS sensor module mounted to a smartphone. Probably the stupidest invention in some time. Sony really does want to commit financial suicide.
But all the current E-mount cameras can already be controlled via smartphone. This adds no new features, barely saves any weight (and while smaller horizontally, it's thicker than current cameras), and LOSES a lot of real functionality. So you save less than 70g in weight and lose real camera controls and a non-laggy screen to gain, what exactly? The a5000, a5100 and a6000 can all do the same remote shooting as the QX1.
GodSpeaks: What is the point in these cameras, especially the QX-1? Why would I want to use such a camera?
Cell phones have enough power issues, without adding constantly on WiFi and screen to actually be able to use the QX 'cameras'.
Are quadcopters so sensitive to weight that the 218g body of the QX1 is notably better for this use than the 284g body of the a5100?
Also, this won't make a great quad-copter camera because the WiFi in these cameras only works to about 25 feet or so.
Charlie Jin: I actually saw a professional photographer who used this camera (previous model) in a city event. There were so many people around the mayor's announcement, but the photographer just had a nice long pole which was attached with this Sony camera at the top. He was controlling all the stuff using his smartphone, since they were wifi-connected. He was behind the crowd, but I guess that it is him who got the best photo shot. He was also taking pictures of the event from high angle, without any more facilities. I asked him about the stability, and he said there was no problem since there was a optical image stabilizer and he was wearing a belt to stabilize the pole. Very nice.
Paul - this camera is a whopping 67g lighter than the a5100. That's it. 67 flipping grams. That's almost nothing. What exactly are you saving here? That's the problem here, you save almost nothing in size and weight, gain exactly ZERO features over existing sony E-mount cameras, and lose the ability to, you know, use it like a real camera.
Couscousdelight: Olympus does the same, and no one seems to complaint.Personnaly, i don't like this at all, they sell prime lenses which in fact are not real primes... optically speaking.
I don't want a prime lens who need computer assistance to deliver full perfromances.
You do realize that the word 'prime' simply means that it's a single focal length lens, right?
bluevellet: Pricey on its own, but a fair deal with the GM1.
I still think the Lumix 14mm and the 20mm pancake primes make more sense size-wise on the GM1. This new 15mm prime looks better suited for bigger m43 cameras.
Nice touch with the aperture ring too, more m43 optics should have that feature.
Actually this should handle better than the 20/1.7 on the GM1. The GM1 is so small that the 20/1.7 is actually quite large on it, since it has a wide diameter...it tilts the camera back and makes the grip smaller. Since the 15/1.7 has the same diameter as the 14/2.5, the extra length doesn't pose much of an issue. The GM1 handles really well with the 12-32 kit (of course), the 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 9-18mm, Oly 25, and Oly 45.
Lee W: What about LR?
Adobe's done plenty of Lightroom RC versions....I can't remember a time when they haven't done a Lightroom RC in addition to the camera RAW version.
ecm: Hm. I looked through the samples and thought, "The Fujifilm is getting it's butt handed to it by the likes of the Olympus E-M1 and Canon 100D" - and then I read the article's conclusion.... there's a disconnect between what I see in the comparometer and what their conclusions are.
I suppose it could be the lens - I've been fooled before by a fantastic lens on a so-so camera here at DPR - but it looks more like over-agressive noise reduction to me. The green feathers are a blur at any ISO.....
I also recognize that ultimate sharpness and detail is not everything; it's something that I crave, but others might prefer the warm almost "creamy" smoothness of the Fuji's output - with the right subject and at the right enlargement it would be quite nice.
A lot of it is that X-Trans requires different sharpening algorithms. The detail is there, but at default sharpening, appears soft. Adjusting up reveals tremendous amounts of detail, easily as good and in many cases a little better than my E-M5. DPR however, normalizes sharpening for all cameras. While good in theory, when comparing a Bayer sensor vs an X-Trans, it doesn't work well.
Jogger: I've never considered Fuji to be premium.. they sell expensive cameras and lenses like other makes. But, its hardly a premium brand.
All of the Fuji X lenses are really, really good. The 14/2.8 is the best ultra-wide lens I've ever used. Period (including several Canon Ls, the Panny 7-14, Zeiss Touit 12mm and more). The 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 are exceptional and the 55-200 is brilliant as well. Frankly, there isn't a bad lens in the lineup, and they all have a beautiful rendering with great bokeh and a wonderful contrast curve. Truly excellent lenses.
keeponkeepingon: I'v seen at least one review (digital rev?) trashing the ergonomic of the X-M1
issues included how you have to reach over a control wheel to get to the shutter button and a touch thumb dial on the back that was too easy to easy to hit accidently.
Could any users of the X-M1 comment on how good/bad it is to handle?
I couldn't disagree more with Kai on those points. I have never, even once, accidentally changed the top dial while pressing the shutter, or changed the top dial while changing the rear dial. To do the latter requires a ridiculously stupid amount of extra thumb movement and an intention to hit the top dial. I find the ergonomics on the X-M1 to actually be exceptionally good for a small camera. I also have the X-E1, and while the X-E1 ergonomics are a little better, it's also not as responsive as the X-M1, so I end up shooting with both pretty equally.
You can look at all the marketing speak around 'ultra-pixels' and the like, but aside from the Lumia 1020's PureView (which is really excellent), and maybe the Xperia Z1 (barely), none of the newer hardware, on either the Android side or Windows Phone side are actually better than the iPhone 5's camera.
Rumors are pointing to an f/2.0 lens, so that'll be nice...I'd like to see a slightly larger sensor and a little more robust camera app. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the 5's camera. I don't use it for serious photography, but it's nice in a pinch when I just need a snapshot.
yabokkie: I like high resolution, low aberration, light weight, and cheap f/1.8 primes for 35mm format cameras (like some recent Nikon AF-S/G ones), or f/1.2 primes for APS-C to get the job done.
tkbslc - Wait, what? What in the heck do you mean by 'sensors can't get more than f/1.4 worth of light?' What a bogus statement. The aperture of the lens has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of light the sensor can 'handle'. I assure you that an f/0.95 lens on Micro 4/3 gets a full stop of light more than an f/1.4 lens on m4/3...and that's a lot more than the difference to f/1.2.
Sensors are exposed and 'get' however much light is passed by the lens on to the sensor. The amount of light that's passed on is more based on the brightness of the light source. Interestingly enough, if I meter the blank white wall at my desk with my f/1.4 lens on, wide open, I get 1/60s at my current settings. If I remove the lens entirely, I get 1/180s, or 1.5 stops faster, equivalent to f/0.85. At this point, the lens mount is acting like the aperture. This defines the maximum possible aperture opening to the sensor, but that's about all.
Gavril Margittai: What I would need is a phone that accepts an SD card so I can easily upload pictures to the web, also able to compress it to a smaller size, without destroying the original. There are plenty of photo editing apps. Should not cost that much. I already have a camera.I prefer to photograph with a camera and use a phone/tablet for Internet connection.
I agree, but you don't need the phone to take SD cards...almost all new cameras have WiFi built in, which allows you to very easily transfer images to your phone or tablet. I use an OM-D, Panasonic GX1, Fuji X-E1 and Fuji X-M1, and I find myself bringing the X-M1 out a lot simply because it has WiFi (well, image quality is fantastic too)...get a good shot, ship it over to my phone and upload to Facebook. Works great!
starwolfy: This lens sounds quite promising but "Nocticron" ?That is name is...marketing $!/"@%* lol.
In Leica territory a Noctilux is "currently" F0.95A summilux is F1.4A Summicron is F2
So this lens is a mix of F0.95 and F2 all together (Since the use of "Lux" is impossible due to Nocti"Lux") ? lol A F1.2 lens. Hmmm No ! A Nocticron of course ! xD
I'm not criticizing the lens...but just the name employed.
They've done this before, though. For lenses between the Summicron and the Elmarit, the f/2.5 lenses, they are Summarit. It's just Leica's thing. Since 'summi' is already used for Summilux, summicron and summarit, and 'lux' is in both Noctilux and Summilux, they did what makes sense: Nocti indicates faster than f/1.4, and the cron indicates that it isn't f/1.
Now, they've used f/1.2 as Noctilux before, but that was before they came out with the f/1 and f/0.95 Noctilux, which is what most people think of when they think Noctilux...so I don't begrudge them the new name.