GodSpeaks: This 'might' have been interesting back in the days of film (ie: last Century), but today?
Go to a photography museum and look at the big prints, even the modern ones. They are usually taken with 4x5". You will be impressed with the quality.
mrdancer: So, I get the impression that this camera is most suited for landscape photography.
What if I pull my little camera out of my pocket, slap it on a tripod and take a few dozen photos, spend 2-3 minutes with Image Composite Editor to automatically stitch them together and end up with same or higher-resolution image with much more DOF? Photo setup time is probably about the same to ensure I get a decent end product, post-production maybe a little quicker with the little camera (assuming I convert RAWs, also). Maybe I lose some DR compared to the film, but could probably get most of that back by shooting RAWs.
Then I can use the little camera to shoot all kinds of other photos, too, and not have to carry a backpack with it...
What's the advantage of this big camera again?
Indeed, mrdancer, rent a 4x5 kit,study the operation, make landscape pictures, examine the results and you'd wish that you could delete your comment.
tkbslc: I have a hard time believing a $150 plastic film camera can beat even a high end compact, large film or no.
Edit: Looking through the photos on flickr, I think you'd better off with a quality used 35mm camera if you are after the film look and some DOF control. Maybe something like the Olympus XA or Stylus Epic.
Let us talk facts, not perception. The lens is the most important part. With a good lens, and decent light metering and guesstimate of distance the result will be on par wiht a Linhof. A 4x5" scanned at 3200 dpi (you could go higher, let's be "reasonable" here would yield a picture of 4x5x3200x3200 pixels or almost 205 (!) Megapixel. This is why those enormous picturesin museums are usually made with technical cameras.An Alpa camera (google them) is not that much more user friendly, yet its customers don't complain.
i don't agree. This does not aim to be a a Technika, but a cheap entry to large format photography. Despite not having movements, it is good for large prints at museum quality if the proper lens and tripod are used.
Soggoth: Without traditional view camera standard movements (rise, fall, tilt, shift) the whole idea doesn't have much sense
The XT-1 with its wonderful clasic Contax-like styling is gorgeous. Having great experience with an XE-1, I am lusting after this.And it must be said that the Lomography Petzval, here shown as a tangible object, is an interesting experiment. The idea of re-creating these old lens formulas is appealing to me, to unique look of the nervous bokeh does not make it universal but it can be interesting.
Not at all, its capabilities as a classic photo camera are obvious very very good. If this is what you want (I for one am not interested in video) then it stands out from the crowd.
whtchocla7e: Another ME-TOO camera. Does some things well, other things not so well, and gracefully blends in with the crowd.
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
When the light is difficult. I shoot Raw on my fuji xe1. But usually I set it to jpg Velvia. The saturated colours may not be real but I like that people look healthier than in reality :-)
Jon Ragnarsson: Why doesn't Pentax make a mirrorless 645? That would be a truly unique camera and sure to make a few heads turn.
It would require new lenses to work with a svelte body.Remember that goofy Pentax mirrorless? It was so thick because they could not compress the space of the traditional mirror box and keep compatibility with the lenses.It is easier to put traditional lenses on thin mirrorless bodies (just add a distance ring that can mount) than the other way round.But conceptually: yes it would be good to see a very portable camera with MF sensor. I have a Fuji 6x45 AF MF camera, it looks like a 35mm compact camera on steroids but it is still very portable. Such a device in digital format with big sensor would be awesome.
Cal22: I like the line of lenses, especially the primes the high aperture and the handling of which are meant to be reminiscent of great moments in the history of photography. Most likely we'll see a 16mm to be added in the months to come.
Unfortunately, the rangefinder style camera is not to my liking, it's too inconvenient for a left-eye photographer. And since there's no EVF attachable to an M1 or A1 I'm still standing on the sidelines.
I use the xe1 with my left eye. No problem, except your nose rubs the screen.In fact it is slightly easier than a traditional dslr because now my hand at the shutter is farther away.
PixelMover: Am I the only one here who thinks the X-T1 body looks a lot like to old Contax RTS III (but a lot smaller, obviously...)
Yes with its wide pseudo pentaprism it has that lovely Contax vibe to it. I liked those cameras, even bought a cheap 139 model with 50mm planar one day, as an extraCamera.
bossa: I was hoping for a mirrorless version to get the size down to a D800 or D4 but they've stuck to the previous format.
Remember the Fuji 6x45 rangefinders? I have an autofocus one (looks like a giant film compact) and earlier there were manual focus ones. Really fantastic results and so portable.Imagine a near exact same camera with the big sensor in it, that would be awesome!
I have the XE-1 which is ergonomically the same, the XE-2 is mainly better regarding AF-speed which is indeed average on the XE-1.I find it a very nice travel camera. Typically I just take the 35mm f1.4, I also have the standard zoom which is good as well but the 35 is truly impressive.Historically on my Nikon D200 I always shot raw and then spent time finetuning in photoshop. I found that unless the light is really difficult, the XE-1's jpg quality is very nice. I typically set the camera on "velvia" (saturated) colours when traveling, I like that people look a bit healthier on holdiay snaps than they look in reality!My D200, while a bit antique, is stil a nice camera in the lower ISO range, and it is built very sturdily. However for travel the XE-1 has won my heart.I also like the old-fashioned controls, I don't have to browse through menu's, in essence I shoot with it like with my vintage Nikon F3.
Allen Yang: I can't understand why people would buy Fuji SLRs since it doesn't have as many lens as Canon or Nikon system. In addition, its camera bodies are much less competitive than Canon or Nikon cameras.
For johnnedanger: in general I do agree. I have both Fuji and Nikon, these days I mainly use the xe-1 with the great 35mm f1.4 lens. Excellent pictures. However!At my wedding pictures were taken with a Nikon D4 and some version of Canon 5D, and a friend also used my fuji. All 3 cameras produced very nice pictures, but I have to admit that the rendering of a full frame sensor is still better than the fuji's aps size. The image has more depth, 3 dimensionality to it. Mind, i love my fuji esp for travel and at 1.4 the lens has nice bokeh but I have to admit that those heavy full frame dslrs are not outdone just yet.
Kaelis: PhaseOne... I'm still waiting for a Full Frame you know, don't take the same road as Pentax please, I'm tired of waiting for bigger sensors !
Indeed, say a 4000x4000 pixel sensor in the classic 6x6 format. 16 megapixels with likely excellent high iso performance. That would be cool.
With its relatively wide "pentaprism" hump and all dials top plate, it looks a bit like those lovely Contax SLRs of the film days.
Considering the size of the images it produces, can we consider the Fuji Instax 90 as a medium format film camera?
All in all a rather attractive device if instant print results are important.
tallguy600: Got the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for just $200 more before Christmas.This Nikon lens looks uninspiring by comparison so the image quality better be good I'm thinking.
I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for APS sensors and I was always disappointed with its perfomance at 1.4.I'd rather have a lens that starts good at f1.8
tornwald: I am betting this will be able to compete with the Zeiss Otus. For a lot less money
That is probably wishful thinking. The price difference has a reason, it's not just marketing.Anyway, both you and I are assuming now. I am curious for the test results as well.