Searching: Looking at the samples and the features, I don't see much of anything that is really something to peak my interest. Its sort of ho hum, and yes, priced at the high end for me. No thanks.
simply because it is a quality camera designed for photographers.It is not an electronic toy targeted at majority of the iPhone -like enthusiasts. Seems like you are falling into the latter category (nothing wrong with that)
Daryl Cheshire: I don't think a camera should be marked down because it has a fixed rear screen, fixed screen cameras are more structurally robust.
Nikon is far more robust camera than Fuji.....show a test or quantify your statement.
Raphot: I think it's tedious and futile to compare the X-pro2 to other mirrorless cameras and slate it because of its lower specs. I think it's basically a cutting-edge digital camera in a sturdy analogue body with an amazing amount of direct control,. As such it won't be suited for all purposes. For example, it won't be suited at all for sports photography despite its fast fps. But once you slow down and think about every shot, you'll start taking better pictures. At least that's what happened with me, I have an XT-1 and for me its the best camera I ever owned. I've been increasingly using it with vintage Leica R lenses and it's been an absolute joy.
I own X-T12 and it is brilliant! There are some flaws like on anything else but the most important controls and the quality of the pictures are simple great. WiFi ....it is a nice to have but really not needed feature.
Yet another great camera for those who love Fuji!Those who do not , still can be amazed by the other excellent cameras on the marked...there so many nowadays. No need to kill one another on this forum in the "my camera is the best" battle. Be fair: Recent Sony's, Panas, Olys and Fujis from the mirror-less group are just great tools and you only can blame yourself if the pictures taken still looks boring! One or the other technical aspect is better on a this and that stuff but at least we have a choice to satisfy our preferences.I will keep my X-T1 for a while yet.
BTW, if somebody bought ( or will buy) the X-Pro 2 and do not like it he can sent it to me (I will not pay for it but will be taking care of it..I promise ;) )
LuxAlta: Frankly, I'm massively underwhelmed by these results. Almost everything from the last couple of years looks as good out of the studio scene when converted to monochrome from color. They are *minor* exceptions where you can see the Bayer demosaic break down on incredibly fine repetitive details that doesn't happen with the monochrome sensor, but frankly, I can get a 5Ds and still resolve more after converting to black and white.
I've always loved the idea of a true monochrome camera, but this one sure as hell ain't it, especially at that price. This offers nothing but a nice dent in your wallet.
I would like to see this specific look, ideally back to back with a non-specific look b/w conversion from a high level modern camera available (can be APS-C Canon, Sony, Fuji, Oly etc)......this would be for myself.Then, would like to show it to a couple of people who are not tech persons in photography technology but just like watching pictures and get their opinion on the specific look....
kecajkerugo: This is yet another attempt to attract some customers with thick wallets...Even if there are some differences between this tool and others with colour sensors and even are measurable in a technical way, practically there is no immediate, obvious performance advantage of this Leica toy (for big boys).The B/W photography is about tonality, sharpness, mood and those are the virtues which really make your photos to stand out of the crowd of many mediocre ones. Show up any photo to your friends, family members and see if they are amazed by pixel level perfection or rather the content.And finally most of the modern cameras with the latest RAW processing techniques are at least as capable as this tool. So for it will be fun, another toy they can play with but nothing more, nothing needed to make great B/W pictures.
badi, do not be too radical....I was not saying about such significant drop of quality as associated with a phone camera. Leica is advertising this camera as an ultimate b/w machine and my point (and the others on this forum) is that basically you can achieve ~ similar or better level of perceived quality with other existing tools without not necessary investment into a limited system like this b/w Leica.
This is yet another attempt to attract some customers with thick wallets...Even if there are some differences between this tool and others with colour sensors and even are measurable in a technical way, practically there is no immediate, obvious performance advantage of this Leica toy (for big boys).The B/W photography is about tonality, sharpness, mood and those are the virtues which really make your photos to stand out of the crowd of many mediocre ones. Show up any photo to your friends, family members and see if they are amazed by pixel level perfection or rather the content.And finally most of the modern cameras with the latest RAW processing techniques are at least as capable as this tool. So for it will be fun, another toy they can play with but nothing more, nothing needed to make great B/W pictures.
FAA, US.....I guess is far away from Europe.....
Good to see the "tiny" X-T10 sensor out-performs the Sony and others in the ISO invariance test :)Resolution is not on the same level , which is obvious, but the ability to recover the shadows and still keep the right colour with little noise is amasing!
Is there any way to select images to be transferred by Wi-Fi in the X-T1?Sometimes it is worth to select only few images for a quick test but the camera will be sending everything not send first time. It is crazy because if you move/remove the images sent earlier the camera will be sending everything from the memory card one more time and the process is slow, especially when the RAW files are sent.
Happy and blessing Easter!
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 :)