Jens_G: At this physical size, it really should've been FF.
Fuji claims it outresolves the 5D2's sensor. I think the camera would have been bigger and the lenses as well with a full frame sensor.
GodSpeaks: Camera makers must STOP using 'G' and 'X' in naming their products.Seriously.Enough already.
Agreed!!! Especially X!
alfa: If this can get anywhere close to what the FT 12/60mm SWD can do then anyone who has owned that lens will be be able to tell you why this one exists. Forget prices, performance, size, everything. The 12/60 is the best walkaround lens ever made.
I still have the 12-60 and it's awesome. BUT, the aperture range was 2.8-4!!! And f4 at 60mm! Granted it's a chunky lens (relative to the m4/3 lens). But at least it was a combination of fast and awesome glass.
I like my X10 a lot and the white blob hasn't affected my everyday use very much. While I have come across them in isolated situations, I still think it's one of the best P&S cameras ever. However, Fuji's response that the X10 is working within prescribed tolerances does not instill consumer confidence. It means one of two things. Fuji's tolerance for problematic sensor is quite high (a.k.a., low standards), and therefore, the white blob problem is acceptable to Fuji. And/or, it means that Fuji believes its customers are overeacting to something they should just accept. At least companies like Pentax humbly admitted that they had a dirty sensor problem. Fuji needs to step up by acknowledging that the problem is a problem, instead of saying, "c'mon, that's nothing .... but I'll see what I can do ..."
Looks like all Sigma is doing is disabling the stabilization motor in the lens. The size is identical, and the weight is only 15 grams less than the stabilized version. Similar to other Sigma and Tamron pricing moves, I sincerely doubt Sigma will charge less for the non-stabilized version (as compared to the IS version).
opticaloptimum: The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.
Not true at all. At macro range, the X100 is soft at F2. However, at normal portrait range, the F2 is very good. Stop it down to F2.8, and it's excellent.
Moreover, with an equivalent focal length of 35mm, the focal length itself is not designed for close up head only portraits. 35mm is more of an all around focal length that is good for some head and shoulder photos, as well as environmental portraits, street shooting, landscape and architecture.
Lastly, 35mm is not going to get super shallow DOF unless you get really close to the subject and the background is far enough. And for portraits, you don't want to do that anyway with a 35mm lens, because 35mm is going to distort the face at close ups.
In conclusion, if you were/are looking to use 35mm for heads only portrait, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Biggest quirk was not addressed -- auto ISO and ISO control should be on the same menu!!!
Also would like to have seen the following addressed:
- why is the user able to change ISO with the upper control lever when using the OVF, but is forced to use the lower control jog wheel when using EVF????
- allow user to assign a function to the RAW button, similar to the Fn button
akhyar: The Auto ISO should be included in the ISO menu....
I hope they did. One of the most annoying quirks in the current version.