Mike FL: By using old Nikon D7100 as a base line, X-Pro2 almost inflates the ISO by ONE STOP in base ISO.
What a surprise even lot of people indicated FUJI is well known for inflates the ISO, but still..
And there are three individual "likes" hiding under the cloak of anonymity. Shameful. My Avatar is named "Charles" and you can guess where he and I hail from.
Dr_Jon: Can I suggest using the X-Pro2 as an opportunity to compare Raw converters and how well they do with X-Trans. It would be an interesting article. A starting point:http://chromasoft.blogspot.it/2013_03_01_archive.htmlMentioned as you do use ACR/LR which aren't even close to state-of-the-art for X-Trans (although quite representative of what the users are playing with I guess, which could be as no-one is doing much testing).
I'd also be very interested in a benchmark/test/whatever for high ISO noise reduction. Everyone does loads of it these days, most not that well (okay, I'm fussy). How about a test that measures artefacts and detail reduction, even if only showing visual examples to the user. (I may be alone in not seeing nice clean areas of even tone being okay in return for the detail getting nuked though.) Looking at some of the high ISO Fuji samples, which vary between good and quite bad for noise processing, prompted this BTW.
A very good suggestion. ACR and LR seem to be the ubiquitous benchmark but over many years of looking at camera reviews on-line it became clear to me that many cameras, not just Fuji with their X-Trans sensor, were getting a raw (sorry about the pun) deal when really it was Adobe not getting the best out of the cameras' proprietary RAW files.
At one time I'm sure DPR used to compare Adobe conversions against the camera manufacturers' own RAW converters and in every case, to my mind, Adobe came off worst.
I used to use LR but found that Silkypix did a far better job with my Panasonic files and Sony's own but limited functionality Image Data Converter works better with their files.
I appreciate that the testers say they can't get to grips with all the software out there, and so it is best to standardise, but surely the camera owner wants the best IQ he can get? And if this means using the manufacturers own software, why not?
NickyB66: U is for U-Boat maybe?
More likely "untersee".
davids8560: Improvement in the Rugged Compact Sector is long overdue. This is an appealing option. Isn't this almost the first-ever, stand-alone rugged, submersible full-featured large sensor digital model ever? (Meaning, no housing required?) The Nikon 1 AW1 is the only other, right?
I think you may be correct about the little Nikon. It came first and it has interchangeable lenses to boot.
AV Janus: There is a typo in the article.The flash is built-ON not built-in
@ Klarno. So nobody says "built-on"?
"He had a home extension built on to the end of his house." :D)
In the current context, built in is more appropriate as the flash is part of the whole assembly
pdelux: Rugged cameras are always a bit ugly, but man this leica is one of the ugliest
Actually, I thought exactly the opposite and wondered how Leica have been able to produce a waterproof camera of this spec that decidedly does NOT look like a ruggedised camera or an Action Man or Fisher Price toy camera.
melgross: I'm sorry, but I remember reviews of Soviet lenses, including these, way back. They weren't considered to be all that good then, and when compared to the vastly better lenses of today, they're practically junk.
But some people have fond memories of the bad old days, and seem to like lenses that are soft, have serious falloff, and aberrations. I suppose for some portrait work, where this gives a somewhat dreamy look, it's fine.
But what looked good on film, often doesn't look good on digital, where those aberrations don't give a soft look, but a hard aberrant look. Use old AnscoChrome, and a soft crummy lens was great, I used to use the combo myself for female portraits. But for much else it was a bomb. Today, it's a disaster. These "new" lenses are going to be very limited in what they can be used for.
Hopefully, the designs, and particularly, the optical and mechanical quality, is improved significantly. But if it is, then it won't be the same lens anyway.
Agreed, but I believed we fared better in the UK as the importation and distribution of Russian cameras/lenses was undertaken by Technical and Optical Equipment Ltd. and who checked out all items before sending them to UK sellers. Any duff item could either be adjusted (camera bodies) or rejected or lenses rejected.
Russian optics had a good reputation in the UK for optical performance versus price. Good, but nothing exceptional, save for the f6/28mm Orion 15 and, if you got a good one, the f2.8/35mm Jupiter 12, which many ranked equal to, if not better than the Leitz Summaron of that era.
Both my versions were truly excellent with K25.
exapixel: I'm not sure that this is much of an upgrade over a vintage-2012 NEX-7.
It is, if you ever get to see the difference in IQ. The IQ I see from my Nex 7 is inferior even to my X-Pro 1!
LukeDuciel: Oh well, if only it is a full-framer.
FF can be better, but until you've learnt more about digital photography it is unlikely you will be able to exploit its potential, and as Peter Bendheim has said, you are unlikely to notice any difference in the images you produce by using a quality APS-C camera. or indeed m4/3, with quality optics. My advice is don't run before you can walk.
vesa1tahti: Viewfinder position not ideal for right eye shooters. Compromise: ought to be in the middle.
There are very good reasons why the v/f is not central, but positioned on the left. it has already been stated that it leaves the left eye free to view outside of the frame. Those who use or have used r/f cameras know what this means in practise. Also it means the r/f can have a longer base which affords greater accuracy, especially with lenses up to a true 135mm. There have been some basic 35mm film cameras with a centrally placed v/f and coupled r/f, but these were invariably fixed lens designs with a very short rangefinder base and where focusing accuracy wasn't so much of an issue.
So why not position the v/f on the right hand side for left eyed users? Not simple, as it would entail a complete redesign of the camera body requiring the shutter release to be moved to the left. Obviously it couldn't stay where it is now.
Mikee: The X-Pro1 was my first true love in the mirrorless market. It felt so good in the hands and I love the overall look of the camera. The quality of files was also quite nice. I've since then switched to the Sony A7II/RII. While I think Fuji hit the mark on the styling of the camera, the Sony A7 series really is what I was hoping the X-Pro2 would be (minus the body).
Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great camera. But at that price point, someone not willing to take a look at the Sony A7II would be a shame.
Richard, I wished you hadn't said this! :D) I'd better not go and check it out.
Skipper494: The Sony NEX 7 was here first. Too bad Sony compresses the RAW files.
But the Nex 7 has a full EVF, not the optical hybrid of the X-Pro. And it isn't as ergonomically friendly as my Pro 1 either.
AdamT: 24mp - great - shame they didn`t ditch X-Trans :( this would have been an excellent opportunity to do so .
@ gordonrussell76. Well said. Whilst one may wish to discover why a particular camera works for you, it isn't necessary to enjoying what it produces. I'm a recent adoptee, using the X-Pro 1, and it does have a certain "je ne sais quoi" to its images that I find appealing, although I was initially drawn to it as a Leica M film user.
guyfawkes: A question for Panny/Oly M4/3 users, please. With in-body IS from Oly, and lens IS from Panny, are their lenses fully interchangeable between bodies with FULL functionality, AF - IS - Exposure modes? Reason for question: could this lens be used on an EPL-1 body?
@ unipeh. That's it. Thanks for replying. I understand that with a Panny lens on an Olympus body I could use the in-body IS of the Olympus, and that the in-lens IS of a Panny lens would become redundant. However, do you know if the Olympus body would still couple to give AF and exposure modes?
A question for Panny/Oly M4/3 users, please. With in-body IS from Oly, and lens IS from Panny, are their lenses fully interchangeable between bodies with FULL functionality, AF - IS - Exposure modes? Reason for question: could this lens be used on an EPL-1 body?
$75 a film cartridge? Make that £75 in the UK and this thing will never get off the ground here. No, if retro is the deal, why not simply remanufacture Super 8 film, sell it at the proper price, and let the 1000's of people who still have Super 8 cameras relive the moment. But of course, they will still need a working projector and screen.
And if this retro move is a good idea, Kodak, why not simply remanufacture Standard (double run) K25 then all those lovely Bolex cine cameras can be brought out of mothballs.
But wait, what am I thinking? Surely, I have read somewhere that there are little gadgets that can record without all the fuss of film. I think it is called digital, and in high definition, too.
guyfawkes: At the moment it ticks the right boxes, on paper at least. Whilst being generally very pleased with the Panny's I've owned over the years, I've been disappointed with their sensor noise properties, virtually limiting picture taking opportunities to base ISO, or + 1 stop. Anything more and a grittiness appeared in all images.
Let's hope the new sensor addresses this issue, despite a pixel count increase.
Yes, I was. I appreciate that this latest model does have a larger sensor but not up to M4/3, I was expressing a wish that it didn't have a family trait. I don't have experience of the latest M4/3 sensors, but I do understand that they are in a different league. Using a Sony sensor is a good move.
Low Budget Dave: The NX1 is an amazing camera. It is not even all that dated; the technology is still competitive with the best that Sony, Canon, and Nikon have to offer.
But very few people will buy a camera from a company that desperately wants out of the camera business.
A reputable UK dealer is listing the NX1 as in stock, but is still asking £1,250 for the body. Who in his right mind would invest now?
3,250,000 ISO? Drat it, it has just made all my exposure meters unusable for all those occasions when hand held would be better. Sigh.
AlexCHStudio: Oh, thank you, Nikon! I knew I need a better camera than my D810! Finally for mere 6.5K (+few more K-s on lens and flashes) I would be able to beat my neighbor who puts me always into shame with his excellent pictures, taken with his 15-years old Canon G2. I am reaching for my wallet already :-)
Great comment, Alex. Keep pumping up the G2, my first digital camera, and it can only go up in price! Must go and blow the dust off it. :D)