Digital Suicide: Fuji guys, stop toying around.Just install a lens mount on the next gen X100SS.
Most consumers would resent paying for a shutter over, and over, and over again. Those who would benefit from fast sync speeds are in the minority. Niche needs get met last in consumer markets.
Cal22: I had thought the converter makes a 75mm (FF, equiv.). If it is not more than 50mm, it's not worth the money and the inconvenience. You'd better forgo the converter and crop the image!
Perspective depends on only one thing, the subject to lens distance. If you use the 23/2 and the lens is the exact same distance as the lens with the new teleconverter attached, the perspective rendering of a cropped 23 mm image would identical to the perspective rendering of the teleconverter image. The out of focus rendering might be different and the pixel dimensions would be different. But not the perspective.
Naveed Akhtar: Silver shell please!!
Just popped back from a brief trip into the future. Silver will be offered later on as a special edition.
(ps buy Apple stock)
Jim Salvas: I bought my E-M1 a couple of months ago, but I wondered before the intro what I would have done if the X-T1 had been available at the time. I think I would still have chosen the E-M1.
In the Fuji, you get a slightly larger sensor and maybe an improved EVF plus possibly improved video, but on every other significant point of difference, the Olympus comes out ahead. More customizable. In-body stabilization (a huge deal if you want to use legacy lenses). Better lens selection.
Still, it's good to see more competition in this space. Who knows, we might even see reasonable prices someday.
Your concept of slightly is different than mine.
goloby: I always loved the Fuji colors, in my opinion they are the best. Fuji lenses are stellar as well. But one thing will keep me from buying this camera and that is the crop sensor. I need bokeh, I love my 50mm f1.4 and I do not want it to be a mid tele, I want it to be a 50. Same with the 35 f1.4. For anybody that thinks oterwise please rent a ff camera with either a 35 or a 50 1.4 lens and you will be hooked.One question about this camera's autofocus, how low can it go? 0 eV like Sony's A7, -1eV like most Nikon dslrs or -3 eV like Canon's 6D?
What is a noise control?
icexe: Can someone explain why ISO100 is so difficult or impossible to engineer into some cameras? It seems many manufacturers either leave it out entirely, or resort to "special" settings in order to use it, even on their high-end cameras.
The majority of buyers feel optimum performance at ISO (800, or even 1600, is more important than a native ISO 100.
You can't have both because A native ISO of 100 would increase underexposure of the sensor (and decrease signal to noise ratio and dynamic range) by one stop at all ISOs above 100.
topstuff: I have to say, purely objectively and not currently as a Fuji user, that the general look and quality of the images from the Fuji camera and lens is very, very pleasing in my opinion.
The IQ is lovely.
They have my attention for sure.
I own this lens.
When you first put the lens on the camera, its length gives you pause. When you use the camera the length does not get in the way. However if the lens was 10% longer it would be too much - for me anyway. It is not heavy.
The price is not an issue for me because this lens delivers performance. I sold my X100 two weeks after I started to use this lens (and I love the X100).
The longitudinal CA is much less than any fast Nikkor G series prime I've used or seen examples from. Of course the fast Nikkor primes are even more expensive (and heavier). The out-of-focus rendering can be a bit nervous in some back lit scenes - such as light filtering through trees. Otherwise the OOF rendering is fine for a 23 mm focal length lens.
The biggest problem is the ugly, gigantic hood. I spent less than $20 on eBay for two screw in hoods (one vented and one not).
I also have the 40/2.8 and 18/2 XF lenses which I use when I prefer a smaller, somewhat less conspicuous lens.
There is no reason not to take the opposite view. Every DNG standard has been published so far. Why would future DNG standards not be published? Where is the evidence Adobe will not publish future standards? How does an eight month delay translate into fear about a complete reversal of Adobe's strategy? I wish Pardee's would elaborate on how Adobe will make more profit abandoning open DNG than staying the course.
Instead of fear and loathing, optimism and confidence are equally justified. I do not share any of the Pardee's concerns. Pessimistic speculation is no more or less valid than optimistic speculation. But I do know this. If DNG failed for sny reason, there are millions of DNG files right now and millions more will be recorded. Opportunity for ample profit will provide incentive for DNG data to be converted into something useful no matter what.
The sky is not falling.
Of course one prints photographs to increase the odds they will be around for a long time.
Are you saying Adobe plans to take DNG out of the public domain? As long as DNG is open, people can convert DNGs to something else. In principle the raw data within a DNG from 2010 could be converted to any other two-dimensional space array in the future. This could be done by highly motivated amateurs decades from now.
I am not concerned about on-board lens correction either. Are you saying the lens correction parameters written to raw fils are proprietary or encrypted so only Adobe can read them? Even if that were true, it would be possible to reverse engineer the corrections empirically. This too could be done by highly motivated amateurs decades from now.
Changing their name would have the same benefit as painting a a new name on the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg.
Clint Dunn: I have to admit....I'm actually surprised the new M is 'only' $7000. It's very unlike Leica to drop prices and the M9 sold for $8k not that long ago. With that said, the M-E should be cheaper than $5500....it's nothing but old technology from the M9 re-badged and sold as new. Leica would have sold a tonne of these ME's at $4000.
This is not SONY chip.
FTW: We will have at least the satisfaction that in any test we will not read anymore that the D600 or A99 make a better shot, it is the same sensor. Remains the absence of mirror, this can give it a serious advantage, the lenses can be used on the other brand with adapters too, so all plays on the mirror absence. But, I will not pay a surplus of 5000$ for that only. Bet all you want that NEX-7 with same lens makes the same good or even better shot. I have seen A99 and D600 shots. Up to 3200 Iso, A99 is cleaner and better than D600. Also the A99 body offers much more working comfort and the price difference is justified, it is an amazing piece of technology and D600 looks a bit poor compared to it. I do not compare this Leica to it, that would be waste of time. Starting by the price, all comment is useless. The day Leica sells it's cameras at a real value price, one can consider doing it.
It certainly is not the same SONY sensor.
I do think their color superiority claims are fraudulent. Their marketing prpaganda for the M8 being a lifetime investment didn't work out unless the LCD screen lasts forever. Why should he sensor magic be any different?
Oh praise be!
After all these years someone finally got color quality right on CMOS. Every time I looked at a Nikon or Canon photo all I could think was, "when will they ever get those colors to be just like a CCD sensors' 'natural and brilliant' colors." Finally SONY and Canon's incompetence is corrected. Pros will now flock to the new CMOSIS technology or go bankrupt.
What a joke. At least Leica is consistant by invoking magic Leica sauce in every digital product they ever made. Everyone without a CMOSIS or CC'D sensor remains a second rate photographer.
Unlike small micro 4/3 cameras, at least you don't have to put enormous zoom lenses on this thing to ge decent zoom performance.
My understanding is the only reason Kodak is still making film stock is to fulfill an obligation to the motion picture industry. I believe the motion picture film is part of a court ordered settlement involving their bankruptcy.
Kodak is under no obligation to produce still-camera film which is why they are trying to find a buyer. It could be the real crisis, with regard to Kodk film stock, will come after the court-ordered motion picture contract period is over.
CFynn: I'm sure it is a nice camera, but the reported prices are nearly $8,000 for the camera and $7,200 for the new 50mm f./2.0 lens. Is this a camera for bankers with big bonuses?
Except the ring won't depreciate.
The X-series has been a complete disaster.
The 1.20 and 1.21 upgrades significantly improve the X100. Thanks Fuji for making it easier to get great results.