jeffharris: It's too small! How will I ever fit it in my pocket? ;-)
And it doesn't update my Fbook page.
select: I was expecting better burst frame rate... 11fps when canon 1dx can do 14fps...when you do sport photography there's a huge difference
still using XQD and CF cards?? I hoped they put SD UHS II slots
no gps and no wifi
no 4k video, no focus peaking and no Zebra
what are you doing Nikon?
Given what XQD can do, and separately what the new CFast cards can do, SD card slots are unlikely.
Bet there's some work to making 4k video work really well--shooting time, raw output, etc, so you'll have to wait for the D5 or buy a video camera.
Jahled: Ho ho, KR got this one a bit wrong didn't he!
You mean the 24MP claim?
Houseqatz: being able to REALLY edit the images from a camera phone is a dream come true. it's not always practical to carry around a dslr, but i always have my phone on me. the 1020 is the best solution for my needs, mostly taking notes, and quick snaps, and when i want more, it delivers.
i have yet to use a camera phone that is as capable in the image department, or whose output affords as much editing latitude. i know that the 808 is supposed to outperform the 1020, but i have never seen one in the wild.
You've made my point, yawn.
No it's not impossible to extract raw files to jpegs on a camera, but it's not the primary method and it's not going to become the primary method.
Also one can edit jpegs. So of course one can edit jpegs from any camera phone. Here I guess the "really" makes your point.
The problem is as I'm sure you know: Editing is not limited to raw. Raw allows much more flexibility, including extraction, but that's only part of editing. So back to "really" suggesting WB, NR tone, etc, but why not just stay "have raws instead of jpegs"?
gerard boulanger: A teasing before a full review Friday?
Who knows. Are the new camera jpegs smaller files than the previous variations, say smaller than out of camera jpegs from the X E1?
I only have raws from these bodies, so can't check the jpeg file size.
Infared: hey...this camera sounds good on paper...but when I click on the "original" files all I see in the image samples up above are a bunch of smeared, unsharp jpegs. What gives?
The beta of ACR 8.4 extracts raws from the Fuji X-T1.
And I see you noted PhotoNinja's beta already extracts those files. Why not use that?
Anyhow these X-T1 raws aren't likely to be very different than those raws from the X-E2. So there's no great need for raws from this camera yet. Same idea applies to the Samsung NX30--it's not radically different than the NX300.
ProfHankD: I have some sympathy for Nikon in that this problem may well trace to a quality control problem with a part they didn't make (e.g., the shutter mechanism) -- it's probably a supplier problem. However, they're still dancing around it, not admitting there is anything in particular wrong in an advisory that seems to have been worded by their legal department... and even this didn't happen until well after Nikon had a follow-on product on the market (the D610).
Um, Honda or BMW both use lots of Bosch parts, for example ignition systems and fuel injections systems, but you're saying that Honda and BMW would be right to avoid responsibility for the hypothetical consistent and early failure of such Bosch systems.
No, for this example Honda and BMW should have chosen better parts and done more thorough testing. Then when the failures are obvious, the car makers should issue a recall and replace the Bosch parts with thoroughly vetted systems that will work for years. At the same time, the car makers can take up the hypothetical broad failure of these Bosch parts with Bosch.
No, I know of no specific broad failure of Bosch ignition systems.
However Volkswagen repeatedly lied about the failure of ignition coils in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when it was quite clear that the parts were failing at an extraordinary rate. (I have no idea what company supplied the ignition coils to VW.) VW lost a lot of customers because of this behavior.
It makes sense that the XE2 would be different than the XE1/Pro1. The XE2 is a significantly different camera.
rsf3127: I don't get this x-trans sensor. I really wanted to like it though.
Have you tried it? And then extracted raws with ACR 8, CaptureOne, or PhotoNinja?
Hard to tell if that link is something you've written and/or experienced, or if you're going by what someone else wrote.
Lenses matter too.
Guess I missed the jpeg only thing.
Easier to say the jpeg engine just isn’t as good as whatever previous model.
Have you looked at XE2 jpegs? Don’t see that on your list.
Raws shot with the X-T1 aren't going to be real different than files shot with the Fuji X-E2. So you can make real solid guesses if you have files from that 2013 Fuji body.
Of course new lenses mean something else.
SaltLakeGuy: Sadly yet another "back handed" quick review. I had a EM1 prior to picking up an X-T1 after researching the heck out of it. I had determined I was well tired of the all ISO noise of the mft cameras and loss of fine micro detail at higher ISO's as well. The Fuji X-T1 is perhaps he best camera I've owned (and that would be quite a few) since my D700. In fact in many ways to my eyes and hands it is a mini D700. it focus tracks like a wildcat in my tests so far with moving subjects. The colors are simply sublime (and you guys need to get it together and process the files for this camera in PhotoNinja if you expect a perfect result). The viewfinder didn't even get mentioned and is also a step forward. Personally I had NO problems adjusting to use of this camera after having had a EM1. I can well see their intention of the button design, it was this way to attempt to avoid mis steps in selection. It's more a question of "getting used to it" and once you do it is NO issue. Try again...
The Fuji X-T1 has shipped in the USA?
Jogger: Its good to have options, but, i dont bother with RAW on sensors smaller than APSc. At that point, you are just shooting for fun and need convenience more than absolute image quality.
Put another way, if you do care enough about image quality to shoot RAW.. why bother with anything less than APSc.
Jogger is likely one of those types who thinks it's easy to to adjust colour+WB starting with a jpeg and propounds the argument that smaller sensors are noisy no matter what and noise reduction is the only reason to shoot raw.
Editing on the phone doesn’t have a lot to do with shooting raw on the same phone.
DSLRs shoot raw, almost no one wants to edit on a DSLR, and a somewhat bigger smart phone screen isn’t a real help.
Paco 316: Expandable to 409,600 ISO ... That is INSANE!
Heaven is for real:
Or for shooting at f16 in low light.
And realistically, not highly useable over ISO 50,000.
Remember when people who knew about computers said: "1 gig of RAM, that's insane"?
Or from the video world: "A point and shoot digital still camera, that shoots high definition video, that's insane"?
Alexandrepinto: Most expensive firmware update in history??
Did you use a D3 and then a D3s?
Lux Painter: I want that sensor in a small and light weight body (D600 or smaller and lighter)!
NO chance I will ever buy a D4-sized body.
"Another small change worth mentioning is the camera's ability to use the Auto ISO feature while in manual exposure mode. This allows you to choose a shutter speed and an aperture setting and let the camera decide on the necessary ISO."
Seriously?! Don't tell me the D4 couldn't do that! That's how I use AutoISO 80% of the time (D700/800)
"But, whine, then I'll have to use knobs, and the AF isn't as good as the D4's, and it doesn't have video, and I don't like the lightweight strength of magnesium. Oh and that sensor isn't quite as good as the sensor in this D4s."
Just saying that's the likely response.
howardroark: Every time I hear the word Adobe I get this taste in my mouth like someone poured in a bag of dirty pennies.
Just noticed: It's "pennies", so a metallic taste, not "penises".
oselimg: Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off. But how about technically comparing it to an ordinary DSLR or M4/3? I can't imagine people suddenly shedding their cameras for Nokia phones even as hobbyists. Another gimmick for wannabes.
"Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off."
But what processing did you do to the raw from the Nokia? Raw processing has many different variables.
Also, why cite camera types with much bigger sensors?