kecajkerugo: hmmm...but Steve Huff on his blog constantly insists that the X-T1 is so poor camera that is cannot be even compared with the Oly E-M1.....The latter is allegedly a pro camera and the Fuji is not even close.I think (many think) that both are great and are comparable, different in some areas but both capable of making great photos.
now my friends read the E-M5 II review and then read his comments under the review, actually all the argument about eth Fuji vs the Oly and you will clearly see what I mean.
Since I own the Fuji from a two months I clearly agree with him: X-t1 is so poor in low light (jpegs), giving very smudgy, flat files. The NR is overdone on the Fuji, the people skin is waxy, plasticky to extend which actually prohibits using any ISO higher than 2500. To me it si a big disappointment.
PeaceKeeper: I am taking the votes towards the X-T1 much more seriously than the ones for the a7 II or even D750.
The a7 II has been out for far too little time to really see it's impact. People voting for it are simply excited about something new. The D750 has been out a few more months, and it's impressive to see it competing with the A7 II. But, the X-T1 has been out nearly a full year, and STILL creates excitement among users. That counts much more than any release hype, IMO.
I think had this vote been taken... say, 6 months from now, the X-T1 would still be the camera people are talking about, and would have won easily, with the D750 runner up.
I think that if we take first 5 cameras or glasses from the list we will be happy. There will be some differences and we can chose per our personal needs or just subjective perception of a tool but all the tools will be great in taking pictures! So why some of you just need to have clear winner and argue about arguably valuable scoring differences?
hmmm...but Steve Huff on his blog constantly insists that the X-T1 is so poor camera that is cannot be even compared with the Oly E-M1.....The latter is allegedly a pro camera and the Fuji is not even close.I think (many think) that both are great and are comparable, different in some areas but both capable of making great photos.
John C Tharp: Two questions:
1. Is the AF improved? This is Fuji's 'Achilles' heel'.2. Isn't X-Trans better at higher-ISOs, but lower in acuity than Bayer?
Capture One give amazing results but not at its default settings. You can search the tests on that. The Capture one can gives really impressive results with X trans. And I own both the hardware and teh software.
Sannaborjeson: I wish Fuji would think of FF one day.
no such a need. FF (which is called a small format is just another format, is not solution to everything. Its larger (the lenses are) and heavier. The coming organic sensor will provide more than adequate capabilities to make the discussions about ISO/noise useless. The current capabilities of the X-trans are amazing. If you want really professional system for studio or landscapes (and this mean large format printing needs) shots go for medium format, not FF.
gftphoto: What a great little camera. If only it had a viewfinder I would jump at the chance to own one.
if you want a viewfinder just go and get X-E2 or X-E1.There is a lot of choice in the family.Or you can take the X30, excellent camera but the smaller (but not super small) sensor will limits you somewhat.
Great systems for pros and also enthusiasts who are willing to carry these elephants! Since I am not ready to punish myself with the tanks I will stay with APS-C and will switch to Fuji or (TBD) Oly mirror-less world. The results will be still more than enough. The glass weight and size is not a nightmare.
Best regards for everyone PLEASED with whatever sort of hardware is possession!
I bought Tamron a few years ago but its inconsistency in the AF accuracy department are so annoying I will never buy any if their lenses ...unless somebody will show me it is matter of the past....
yet another good performer. It is though quite intereseting to see very similar performance from smaller sensor cameras like Olu E-M1. At least in this studio comparative analysis. Do not belive it? Swicth to the bulb light, then change to RAW ISO 3200 (then check ISO 6400) and interrodate a couple areas of the chart. it is amasing how similar are the cameras I mentioned.Try to be objective in the observations.
BadScience: I use the 9-18mm MZuiko lens, a wonder of engineering. Is its slowness an issue? Landscapes are taken at F5.6 or F8, so no. Long exposures benefit from a tripod (or beanbag/rolled-up jumper). Its size/weight is a bonus during a long hike, carrying several kilos of water.
But, there are times when speed is useful. And an extra 2mm is a LOT at the long end.
DOF - I don't understand the criticism. You are not getting depth of field at ultra-wide angle, on FF or M43, or even medium format, unless the composisiton is very contrived (ultra-long separation of subject and background). Most people use an UWA lens for scenes that are rarely so contrived.
plenty of 9-18mm shots of mine here:https://www.flickr.com/photos/weesam/
Conclusion?- Its bigger than the 9-18- extra speed will rarely be used (?)- filters an issue (has a pronounced front element)
+ extra speed (?)+ 'pro' build (robust, weatherproof)+ extra 2mm+ higher resolution?
....buy the best lens for your needs.
it is pleasure to see the package but.....
the oly is not full frame so your photos must be ugly :)
Menneisyys: "Of course we are committed to the APS-C format, and we’re still investing it. In terms of resolution, our lenses are so sharp, there’s scope for higher resolution to maximize the capabilities of the lenses."
Sharp lenses able to properly drive considerably higher-res sensors - exactly the same I've been telling the people here at DPR who tend to state higher-Megapixel sensors in Fuji cameras would be pointless.
As has also been shown by Sony's A6000, there wouldn't be any downsides of switching to Sony's 24 Mpixel sensor used in the A6000. Or, for that matter, if Samsung's new 28 Mpixel sensor is indeed good and they also offer it to third-party camera manufacturers, that one.
I do not want any heavy 28 Mp camera producing useless , huge files. Most of photographers just do not need it. There are some special application areas where it can be desirable but for 90 something percentage of the work it is just waste of time and resources. Samsung always admire people with their "more, larger, brighter" but we want quality and functinality and not costly toys.
lem12: Couldn't see much difference between ISO 1000 and 2500. ISO 1000 as clean and detailed as ISO 400 of some Bayer sensors.
it is very hard to beat the X-trans providing that a stabilized lens is attached on the camera- if not it is very easily to beat it with m43 and APS-C cameras . Just per these examples it is clearly shown that for the exposures when the time was longer than 1/30 sec the pictures are just blurred so any advantage coming from this sensor is simply lost in blurry, smeared picture. Same apply to any other Fuji cameras as far as primes are installed...no stabilization, not much use in low light (at least for steady objects when an OIS does the job). We can still use the zooms which are stabilized but just darker.This is sad because the camera and other X-trans machines are just great.
Nukunukoo: In one fell swoop. Panasonic killed Nikon's 1 series.
To Mike with his statement about the 4 stop advantage of the Pana OIS: 4 stops is just 4 stops, not 16 time light gathering capability.It is still indeed 4 stops so for steady objects the Pana will serve better but for moving objects the Fuji will be the winner (for the fixed 35 mm...) since no one cannot freeze a dog by any OIS :)
40daystogo: I've had the RX100 and LX5, but this is the game-changed. No longer is the 1" sensor the desirable sensor for large-sensor compacts. Now it is the m43 sensor. Move over RX100-series. I can't accept anything less than a m43 sensor in a compact from now on.
However, I might hold off getting this. I'm quite happy with my Sony A6000. I look forward to this type of m43 compact getting up to 20MP. That'd be awesome with the Leica lens sharpness. Two more years with the next model and I might jump on board.
Reply to David S. : and that is the reason quite a few pros went into the m43 or Fuji X or just APS-C territory? They make great pictures, also technically excellent, not just artistically compelling.
Charles Lau: Comparable to the Fuji X100?So far no one has mentioned how this camera differentiates itself from all the other compact "MILC" style cameras. To me, the biggest and the most important reason I would want this camera is the manual control shutter speed and aperture dials, just like the Fuji x100 and the Nikon DF. Dispute all the talk about cropped sensors, EVFs , Canon GX7 and Sony LX100s, this camera is unique with the ability to directly control exposure with direct access controls. No more fumbling in the menus, no PASM dials, no art filters, no custom modes. This type of cameras appeals to the people who remembers the good old days of simple mechanical cameras. It may not be appealing to everybody, but more to those who prefers the simplicity of direct control. I think it improves on the already excellent Fuji x100 by including a zoom lens.The Leica version is especially beautiful, in a very classical sort of way.
For steady objects Fuji will loose quickly to it...it is just not stabilized so cannot compensate the loss by better X-trans sensor.For photographing people it will still have advantage....but it does not has any zoom!
Jylppy: It is interesting to notice how "mirrorless" (read "smaller sensor") lenses are not any lighter vs. FF lenses if one wants to get the same focal distance and DoF-equivalence.
you may still learn, it is not late, that so called FF is also called "small format" because real pros use MF or large format cameras so following your logic most of the FF user shall immediately get rid their stuff and buy into at least MF system
Kim Letkeman: Same sensor, same lens. Not much new in this model it seems where IQ is concerned. But I'm surprised at the struggle with tack sharpness in these images. The second statue is backfocused, none of the portraits have truly sharp eyes / eyebrows ... is it really that hard to lock focus on the subject with the X100T? Note: The baskets are nice, but that's rather a large target in a fairly flat plane :-)
this is motion blur...the camera is not stabilized! And this is something which still put on hold my final decision to go for Fuji...Surely stabilization would not freeze the people so with smaller sensors such shots would be even tougher to be made but for a steady subject like shown here in this review any m43 camera with stabilization would serve much better!
Akpinxit: impressive , lets wait for RAW samples - 28MP on crop sensor might be bit too ambitioned
and I would personally hate it...being RAW developer I need to use native resolution and this 28 MP will give me a huge files...too much. And the Fuji 16 MP is still good enough (or too much for most applications). And the x-trans is still ahead of any of the current APS-C already rivaling the FF. And the lovely controls on the Fuji, and the mood coming from the name :)
kecajkerugo: I still own Pentax K-x, I bought it for it good , high-ISO capable sensor (that time). Controls are still good, menu is clear, logical. But there is one single thing which made my life with this camera terrible: autofocus.Pentax was known for very poor autofocus accuracy. The basic model K-x is a disaster in this field. I am afraid that this one will be similar. On paper everything looks promising but in action acts like a cheap piece of crap.Ad still no real mirror-less camera from Ricoh .....waiting too long.So I am switching to the Fuji X system soon.
Thanks for the comments folks! Good to hear that the AF problems are gone now on the latest Pentax bodies.Do not agree with your statement regarding Fuji AF speed -it used to be sluggish but now is just very fast! Faster than most DSLR and only a bad marketing and press from these old days it was slow makes it looking inadequate. Yes The Oly AF is fracture of second quicker but it does not make the Fuji one a turtle.And it is mirror-less ...does flip the mirror, has proper live view and yet great viewfinder.
I still own Pentax K-x, I bought it for it good , high-ISO capable sensor (that time). Controls are still good, menu is clear, logical. But there is one single thing which made my life with this camera terrible: autofocus.Pentax was known for very poor autofocus accuracy. The basic model K-x is a disaster in this field. I am afraid that this one will be similar. On paper everything looks promising but in action acts like a cheap piece of crap.Ad still no real mirror-less camera from Ricoh .....waiting too long.So I am switching to the Fuji X system soon.