write2alan: Here is an idea for Fujifilm: Make a camera body that can take Nikon lenses. Make a camera body that can take Canon lenses and etc... You'll sell truck loads of them overnight. Who has Fujifilm lenses? I don't see that many hands up.
Fuji's main profit in this line, is from lenses, I'd assume. Not only that, the lenses have been pretty damned nice so far.
Mupepe: Sorry: Will they address the inflated ISO behavior? My X-E2 would then benefit from a new fw...
FYI, Andy, DXO will be testing XF lenses now that they have a X-A1 to test on.
Chris Dodkin in the Fujifilm Forums has a much more comprehensive booth review. Kind of disappointing, DPReview. :/
Instead of comparing companies and talking trash... I'm going to say... awesome for MFT. It's great that mirrorless companies continues to develop high quality lenses and bodies for those of us who prefer smaller systems than current DSLR offerings.
InTheMist: Awesome job Fuji!
If only the cameras themselves were faster.
I'm sure it'll happen in time. The X-E2 is about on par with it's peers currently. Mirrorless in general is still a baby compared to DSLR. On sensor PDAF, along with faster processors and higher EVF refresh rates will continue to improve things going forward.
Tapper123: Still no real 1:1 macro lens. *sigh*
Something like a 100mm f2.8 true 1:1 macro would make this system much more appealing to macro shooters.
I'm hoping the macro tubes out there get massaged a bit in quality, so I can pair them with the 55-200.
Asylum Photo: DPReview's bayer settings continue to harm the test results of X-Trans sensors. I don't know why they would use bayer settings for non bayer cameras.
I was referencing the RAW comparison selections. Sorry. The X-A1 is bayer. The X-M1 is not. In the comparisons for Raw, the X-M1 looks horrible, because ACRs sharpening settings for X-Trans is a bit conservative. My apologies for the confusion.
DPReview's bayer settings continue to harm the test results of X-Trans sensors. I don't know why they would use bayer settings for non bayer cameras.
Jogger: I dont understand why you need to pull the focus ring forward to engage MF.. on my Nikkors, if you want MF override you just turn the focus ring. Why did they make the lens more complicated than it has to be.
Unfortunately, Fuji lenses are focus by wire.
D200_4me: How long will it take one of the internet experts to whine about the X-Trans sensor design/performance? ;-) Come on....get it over with so we can go back to enjoying real photos...
I was hesitant about the size as well. It does look pretty large in photos. But, in actual use, it balances well on the camera, and fits perfectly in my left hand (I always two hand shoot, so the balance is nice).
stupidisanart: Anyone else have an issue with fuji with reliability?
All have worked flawlessly for me, in a variety of shooting conditions. My experiences say they are just as reliable as Canon/Nikon (owning both in the past). Most major electronics manufacturers are fairly reliable these days, though.
peevee1: DPR, are you going to fix your tests (or is it widget?) anytime soon? Why at ISO12,800, daylight RAW A7 and A7r are showing f/5.6 1/6400s while D610 shows f/5.6 1/4000s? And 25,600 is 1/8000 at the same f/5.6, far from 1 stop difference in exposure?
Aperture and ISO across cameras/lenses don't always perfectly line up.
Stephen Scharf: I'm glad that the Fuji X-E2 is on this list (as the X-Pro1 was on the first list), but I have to really take exception to the "struggles with fine green detail" comment. This might be a bit of an issue with LR or ACR, but it most definitely is not with Capture One Pro or Capture One Express. Both of these applications provide the best RAW conversion of Fuji RAF files, but you never use it in your reviews. As such, you're providing an inaccurate description of what the camera is truly capable of producing.
Also, the comment that RAW support is "patchy" is also inaccurate. By my count, there are ten applications that provide excellent if not outstanding RAW conversion for Fuji X-trans files: SilkyPix, Lightroom, ACR, Capture One Pro, Capture One Express, AccuRaw, Iridient Developer, Apple Aperture, and Photo Ninja. How can *ten* different apps that provide RAW conversion possibly be referred to as "patchy"?
Iridient and Photo Ninja seem to be tops of the X-Trans converters. I use Iridient on landscape photos and I'm blown away by the detail. It's a shame that Adobe's substandard conversions are hurting Fujifilm.
How about vignette corrections based on lens data, Apple?
You say it won't make them money short term, but frankly their support and open minds make me more likely to continue to buy into their systems.
57even: All these comments about Fuji AF. Really? They pretty much fixed it.
If you still have a problem, perhaps you're just not the sort that's prepared to learn how to use a camera.
Foolproof is for fools.
It's pretty solid for the most part, but it is still CDAF, and it is still a bit slower than the fastest Olympus cameras. So, on the internet, that means it's THE WORST THING EVER, ZOMG.
Asylum Photo: Using ACR instead of Iridient or Capture One makes the images look softer than they actually are. YMMV depending on raw converter, and I think it's important to talk about that when reviewing Fuji X lenses.
@ Andy - Didn't catch the Capture One reference, my apologies there. The original comment was simply due to the fact that users will be comparing the files to lenses of other systems, and Adobe doesn't treat X-Trans files as well as standard bayer files. Not a big deal, just would have been a nice addition. Keep up the solid work.
I own the 55-200, and find the sharpness pretty incredible for a lens of this sort. It's AF gets pretty doggish in low light though, due to being on a CDAF system that isn't the best to start with. Looking forward to the 2nd generation of XF Mount cameras.
Using ACR instead of Iridient or Capture One makes the images look softer than they actually are. YMMV depending on raw converter, and I think it's important to talk about that when reviewing Fuji X lenses.
peevee1: No stabilization. Underwater tripod anyone?
Not to mention, ideally, you'd be shooting at fairly high shutter speeds.