forpetessake: Samsung seems to be missing the obvious, that a good quality comprehensive lens line-up is what prevents many people from considering their cameras. Their bodies are fine, but nowadays the lenses are primary and bodies are secondary.
I very appreciated Samsung lenses cca 2Y ago in comparison to Canon M, Sony NEX, FujiX lenses. Their lenses was a significant advantage of NX system. Especially their 16, 20, 30 mm pancake lenses with high IQ. Since then they discouraged me by postponing or canceling lenses in roadmap. Currently they lost some of their former advantage especially in comparison to FujiX, but still are better than Canon/Sony. Today I still appreciate their lenses for good IQ for fair price but now I prefer Fuji-s faster lenses ( also fairly priced ).
Gregfromholland: Yesterday It was the first time I Picked up the Fuji Xe1 after my travel to Burma.It was in the evening and I tryed to take some photos from my girlfriend.We were in the livingroom and I had enough lights on but the fuji really had serious trouble to focus. I would say, it had so much trouble focussing that just for that reason it doens't deserve the gold award. The autofocussing is just not good enough.
Still..despite that I think the image quality makes up for tyhe seriously crappy autofocus, but only slightly.
here are my Fuji XE1 photo's from Burma:
Edited by the way in Photoshop raw, 7.4 with the help of VSco filmpack 03 software.
for Fuji focusing tips&tricks see also:http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/7683-x-e1-focussing-trick/http://fujixfiles.blogspot.sk/2012/08/fuji-x-pro-1-af-autofocus-speed-and.htmlhttp://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/topic/1713-focus-101/#entry19694
Dear DPREVIEW, please replace your current here presented JPG images (with NR=+2), with JPG images with OPTIMAL noise reduction (NR) setting (NR=-1 or -2). More commentators complained about IQ presented here, they saw this is fault of Fuji. But it IS NOT, it is because of not appropriate NR setting.
- Your JPG files have HIGHEST(NR= +2) NR, which removed large part of the fine detail! For this kind of comparison this setting provides WORST detail/noise IQ.
- NR setting you used is not optimal, but also not default (NR=0) setting! I see no reason to provide images with NR=+2, as we see it now.
- the greatest reason why somebody complains Fuji is because it see image with suboptimal settings.
It is not big problem to take your existing RAW files and convert it IN-CAMERA to JPG with optimal NR setting.I converted your RAW ISO3200 image myself with NR=-2 and I see the difference to your JPG is big.
In low light if you learn focusing with the camera I would very recommend to use flash. Because taking pictures of moving subjects in low light you could very easy get motion blur. So many people who reported wrong focus had motion blur instead! With flash and time 1/250 you could be almost sure you will not have motion blur and could concentrate to evaluate focus.I found out the XE1 is able to focus reliable for near objects ( inside room ) in almost absolute dark, if you see almost nothing on your LCD. ....if AF light is not blocked as mentioned above. If you feel already sure to AF focus with the camera then you could avoid flash.Flash: I appreciate small inexpensive EF-20. I use it bounced UP to have more natural light.Focus TRACKING is surely not comparable with DSLR. But also other mirrorless (MILC) if better or worse are still NOT good. To be satisfied with tracking we need to wait for next mirrorless generations.
For XE1 with 18-55/2.8-4.0 zoom:
I HAD AF problems BEFORE.
NOW I almost do NOT have it. I'm very satisfied with AF accuracy, the speed in good light is good, in low light slower but still focusing playing children works reasonably good.
Newest Firmware and own experience after some time makes this difference.And I mean also in low light, for playing children. I specially tested AF with newest Firmware in low light, lens aperture always wide open = shallow DOF.When you had problems in low light, then you could easily block AF light by your finger, or I found out that the own zoom lens zoomed near 55mm blocks AF light! ( simply zoom it little less, its usually not big limitation )Yes focusing XE1 may be tricky, the success depends on more factors: Focus mode (most sensitive is "C" continuous mode, but the focus field is quite large and sometimes could focus on something else as you would like), if "S"=single AF mode then the size of focus field makes big difference.
who is interesting for real life pictures with Fuji X cameras:http://www.tomen.de/category/fuji-x-pro1/sample-images/fashion-photography/
These are from X-PRO1 because there are more images than from XE1, and for XPRO1 are also categorized, for XE1 not. Image quality of XPRO1 and XE1 is the same.on the web: on the right side (scroll down) you could find categories ( select camera, picture category, ... )
mediapro: I am not a regular poster, but sometimes I want to say something. Dpreview is, as for me, a great site. I am a fully professional photographer, which does not mean I am better than others, but it means that I know what I am talking about. And all these comments are disturbing me. I can not imagine there is one propho on the line here... All these comments make me laugh on one hand and on the other hand I find them very sad. Use this camera, make pictures in stead of selling all this bs. Then you'll find out Dpreview is right. It was also right if it got silver, or if it got nothing at all. This is, I can assure, a wonderful camera. I made pictures using an X-E1 of professional models (cfr Geneviève Lagravière - not the first the best) (you can see them on my fb). Well let's talk. Or no. I don't want to talk. Just look and see. And wonder. What Fuji nowadays produce is really top notch. No Leica for me. I have been working with an M6 for about 7 years. But no digital one for me.!
Hugo you should not expect that you will like any highly appreciated camera at its DEFAULT settings. What YOU would LIKE, SOMEBODY else will NOT. In camera settings are here to be USED by the user in order hi will like pictures. I almost never used default settings of any camera owned. The picture looks soft to you? - increase sharpening. Colors seems not attractive? Increase saturation. Or in case of Fuji use its wonderfull collor profiles (film simulations). These are impressive and very easy to use. Many appreciate a lot this Fuji feature! I would certainly use the lowest noise reduction setting for images published in this review, this would reveal a lot of lost detail.
Timmbits: @DPR:what are those pale horizontal pinstripes in the babyfoot pictures in the section entitled "Bokeh"? regardless of lens (18-55 or 35mm) or opening, the fullsize images of the babyfoot game all have very thin pale horizontal lines/banding right across the image, at a varying distance from each other. It seems to be something with either the sensor (improbable because they are not evenly spaced) or more probably the in-camera processing. I've seen this before in other samples as well (I don't remember what camera it was from) the pic was of a single engine plane, and the banding was visible in the blue sky. It doesn't seem to be some kind of horizontal moiré either, because the bands perfectly follow scrolling, and are always in the same place when you re-open the pic.Surely I'm not the only one to pick up on this. but I don't recall seeing it discussed anywhere.I noticed them when looking at the ball. they traverse the ball, the field, players, everything regardless of color.
Dear ADMIN, please REMOVE THIS COMMENT THREAD because it is much more confusing than helpful. The problem was in authors crazy PC. The author itself wish his own comment be removed.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dmurphey: I finally got to play with the X-E1 at Kaimuki Camera yesterday, and it got me thinking about autofocus speed. If you've only shot DSLR's, it will seem really slow. If you've used traditional rangefinders, the camera is really fast. It's all perspective...
Any test of Fuji AF is meaningful ONLY with last body/lens firmware (this was released cca 1 month ago). It is not probably that this FW version was in shop. The FW improved AF especially in low light.
steveh0607: As a XE-1 owner I can say the review is fair. The camera delivers great image quality but does have a few quirks, like every other camera. It's not designed to be an action/sports camera so don't judge it for what it isn't. Fuji designed it to be a great street/travel camera, and it excels at that.
But I did find the comment in the "Cons" section: "Large and chunky build won't suit everyone" to be strange. The camera is boxy, sure, but it isn't large or chunky: It's just about the same size as my FE-2, minus the mirror box. I wouldn't call that large or chunky.
Please do not be confused by its body look and measures. I have Samsung NX1000 which is smaller and has larger grip, would seems it better in hand. But in hand I feel XE1 more confident than XN1000. Just by look I was not confident of XE1 grip, but in real usage it is very ergonomic. I feel very sure to hold and operate it by single hand.
gl2k: Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.
XE1 has absolutely TOP detail vs. noise quality. The problem here is that review shots use HIGHEST noise reduction setting. BUT for pixel peeping best detail/noise gives LOWEST NR. Check images at imaging-resource.com and look for OOC JPEGs with LOWEST noise reduction! I own XE1 3 months and detail/noise is TOP with optimal settings.
zos xavius: This review seems to be stacked in fuji's favor, though I realize it may be unintentional. I do read some of these reviews pretty thoroughly and this was one of them. A few things of note. Since they are lying and overstating iso, it would be valid to compare these sensors at true iso value. I'm guessing 3200 is more like 2000. That's a pretty big difference. 6400 is probably more like 3200 on the other cameras and I'm thinking it might not look so much better if all things were equal here. Also the foreground part of the studio shot is much closer in the xe-1 shot. Was the 35 used vs 50s on the k-01 and nex-7? It is either different focal lengths and perspective or the studio shot was moved at some point. My point is that it makes many of the detail parts of the shot look better because they are taking up more of the frame. I think it is is intriguing but its hard to make apples to apples comparisons when things are different. I'm always interested in noise and resolution first.
...continue:With this knowledge I was comparing OOC JPEGS (with lowest noise reduction setting !!) with converted RAW of other cameras. (Such comparison seems to me most fair for XE1 because). And I compared iso6400 of XE with ISO3200 of other cameras ( knowing that this is NOT fair for XE1) ... and found out that also at this for XE1 not fair comparison XE1s noise versus detail is outstanding. This finding from test charts comparison I confirmed many times at my 3 month XE1 usage. It shows that comparing cameras at their DEFAULT setting is often not reasonable, digital cameras are very customizable and for experienced photographer default settings behaviour doesn't matter. I compared images from imaging-resource.com where there could be found some XE1 JPEGS with minimal noise reduction.
I found the biased iso indication short after I bought xe1. Xe1 indicates iso 6400 when Samsung nx1000 iso5000. It makes 2/3EV higher iso at XE1. But for fair comparison you should always verify that these images from different cameras have the same histogram ( the same real exposure ), but for sure check histograms in THE SAME image viewer on PC(not in camera!). After doing it this way I would say XE1 indicates ISO more near 1/2EV to NX1000. As XE1 is often compared to Oly EM5 you should know that EM5 indicated iso is also incorrect (according arguably the most precise test, DxoMark, it is biased 1EV in whole iso range). In DxoMark test you could see that most cameras indicated iso is biased. For XE1 ISO bias seems be more than usual, but it really depends which camera you compare to.
plasnu: One of the most talked about camera since D800 is finally reviewed, but I don't understand why it took so long.
It could be they wait for new ACR converter with better Xtrans support. Also newest FW was released only recently. Its in only at our favor if the test is performed with latest firmware and raw converters. I often had regret if some already finished review was not updated with most recent FW if it solved relevant problems
I just discovered that the images in review was taken with MAXIMAL noise reduction setting (see exif info:NR=HARD=+2). Default setting is =0. But I strongly prefer to use MINIMAL NR=-2(minus 2). You get considerably MORE DETAIL at higher ISO, with NO CHROMA noise and with only natural luminance noise.In my own 3 months experience OOC JPEG images are really TOP, with a lot of fine detail and only little noise (and no chroma noise). I do not worry to shoot auto ISO up 6400, this was something unbelievable with my previous DSLR cameras (Pentax, Canon).
Amateurbob: To determine picture quality the first places I look are dynamic range and sample gallery. The sample gallery confirms the results of the dynamic range comparisons – the X-E1 set at DR 100 cannot match my Nex C3. Why was picture DSCF9046 not taken at DR 200 and DR 400 so one can get an idea of what the camera can do. Why not set the camera at DR 200? Is there some disadvantage in doing so? It is stated that DR200 is like underexposing a stop to retain highlights then adjusting the brightness afterwards, and DR400 is like underexposing by two stops and adjusting further. How does that increase dynamic range? It was shown that it increased dynamic range. If one underexposes the highlights they also underexpose the shadows. What is the dynamic range of a sensor?
Excelent guide to expanded dynamic range of Fuji cameras is here:http://www.fujirumors.com/how-to-expand-dynamic-range/
The longer waiting for full review would be nicely compensated by using new version of Raw ACR converter with better support of Fuji Raw-s.I believe you will update your converted Raw files.Thanks
enable cookies: I've been using the camera for a while and overall find it produces great photos and is a pleasure to use.
But it falls short of my D7000 in several ways, while offering the very big advantage of being smaller and lighter.
One really odd thing is the continuous focus mode that just doesn't seem useful at all. I expect it might be valuable for video, but for stills it seems to fail completely.
It hunts around until you finally touch the shutter button, which then completely refocuses and locks. So there's no tracking, nothing continuous at all from that moment.
And you can't assign it to the back AE Lock button in the way you can with other cameras with the shutter button just being used for release.
There's plenty of other strange things that really need tweaking and are widely commented on by users across the web, but the continuous focus seems worse than odd.
Do not expect useful tracking AF from ANY CD-AF camera, even Oly OM-D with arguably fastest CDAF is useless for focus tracking. If you need tracking AF use DSLR or wait for future advanced PDAF mirrorless (like Fuji X100S ?). Even current PDAF mirrorless Canon M is useless in tracking, Sony NEX 6/5R is better but still seems lack to most DSLR AF tracking. For XE1 I suggest to use AF-S (not continuous ) mode and FULLY press shutter without (half-press prefocus), it will automatically try to focus first and only then to take picture. In order to take sequence shots fully press shutter multiple times. Switching lens stabilizer OFF also may help to reduce shutter lag (depend on stabilizer in-camera settings )
Mike99999: The big problem Canon and Nikon are facing today is how they have multiple DSLR sensor sizes rather than 1 streamlined product. They were forced into providing the archaic 35mm sensor format due to the "bigger-is-better" ego-tripping from many photographers and prosumers.
Using common sense, one digital sensor size (1.5x APS-C) would have been fine for every type of DSLR, from entry level to professional. The difference in noise performance is marginal: one sensor generation provides a higher improvement than doubling the sensor size. Like this, Canikon could have designed high quality f/2 zooms and a high quality set of primes. The same bodies could have sported compact f/4 lenses to please everyone.
That boat has sailed, now Canikon have to defend both crop and full frame sensors, and the whole line up makes no sense.
Four thirds had a much smarter strategy here, and it's now paying off in micro four thirds...
@Mike99999: Your comment would be logical, if the statements "one sensor generation provides a higher improvement than doubling the sensor size" would be true, BUT IS NOT. You could compare Canon 5DII with any current APSC sensor and they are still far behind in terms of detail vs. noise performance. These days is becoming evident that the future of DSLR is full frame (FF). They need only sell more units, this will drop prices substantially and APSC will be replaced by FF. I'm almost sure that FF will be in 1000-2000$ segment, if they sell more units. Maybe it could be even in the next generation. APSC DSLR segment could convert to APSC or u4/3 mirrorless (CSC), where is not needed the best sensor performance and is appreciated much smaller body/lens size. In next generations the PDAF of CSC focus will match DSLR tracking performance, EVF viewfinders will be always more near to optical OVF. ...and FF sensor is going also into mirrorless.
From the article: "Featuring advanced CMOS-shift image stabilisation" ... I would conclude that image stabilisation is done by CMOS SENSOR SHIFT. IS IT TRUE? I do not believe. It is mentioned also "stabilized 25-500mm equivalent lens"