davidrm: Oh, he used a Leica S2, so it must be art.....
Leaving aside sarcasm and cheap shots, which given the prentention of this series are all to easy, from an art perspective I don't see much value either. There seems to be no coherent vision, just randomness. And absolutely no oiginality of expression.
Whatever, he's not hurting anyone.
Totally agree; you can 'sell' anything as long as you call it 'art'... I wouldn't like to put my name under it.
Acrill: " Overall, the X-M1's feature set and form factor places it squarely up against cameras like the Sony NEX-5R and Olympus PEN-EPL5."
The newer PEN cameras blow this one out of the water in terms of features. Its not even close.Touch interface is a massively important feature for a camera with this form factor, and the PENs, along with Panasonic GF and GX cameras do not skimp on other shooting features such as face detection, electronic levels and optional viewfinders.
I don't care too much about a touch screen or any other of these 'fancy' features; as long as the camera can be operated by buttons it's fine with me. What I DO care much about is image quality (in fact that's what it is ALL about).
Earlier tests with X-Pro and XE-1 show that the APS-C sensor in the X-series delivers superior image quality compared to all other brands (including Oly, Panasonic and Sony), even better IQ than many reflex systems.
Jorginho: And to me here is the dilemma which I think will come with all APS-c mirrorless camera's and zooms: this is getting really big. It is heavier than my 100-300 mm zoom for my m43 cam and it is about the same size. It is only slightly faster. The Fuji most likely is an excellent lens and the XE1 as a cam is a step up in IQ over any m43 cam out there.
Personally, I think like this: that lens is forever, that body is exchangable. And m43 sensors will get there soon enough. Also, the Sony sensor in it still has very good IQ, better than any Canon APS-c for example. So I go for the clear size and weight advantage.
Very good to sdee Fuji delivering constantly with their lenses for APS-c. As I said: I have little doubt this one will be very very good and for those who prefer APS-c mirrorless, Fuji seems to be the system you want to get.
...and you might as well DELETE the last sentence...
rusticus: without a "window" on the front of the camera is ugly - the classic style is broken. . .
ok, then DON't buy it! I buy a camera for the pictures it delivers...
grafli: I'm ipressed with the high ISO capabilities! This stuff wasn't possible even 2 Years ago. (It has better IQ than my EOS 7D)
...well being better than the 7D isn't such an achievement (I own one myself)...
Paradigm Changer: There's something broken with the hues on the cover. Not pretty at all.
...thanks for mentioning this most important point about the book...
I find this an awkward new Canon lens; I own the 24-105 F/4 L lens myself and find it very good, at least I have a very sharp copy. The current price of this 24-105 is now around 900 Euro.
So, why spend 600 euro more on a lens that has a much shorter range (24-70) but the same speed? Just because it has a Macro feature that you use every now and then? If you're really into macro, you will buy a dedicated Macro lens.
This lens sounds superfluous to me already from the beginning seen the rest of the Canon lens line-up and the range it offers... And this price is really rediculous! Much too expensive just like all other Canon lenses.
Image is super sharp, IQ great, but composition of this sample couldn't be worse. My grandma could do better... Sorry DPR...
But then this has nothing to do with the camera of course.
Mazevision: LOT of noise for ISO 4000, front eye out of focus (was it intentional?), WB a bit purple (to my eye). Bad example IMO.
True, bad example; difficult to judge a camera from bad pictures...
forpetessake: Skin color is not the strongest point of this camera.
No, skin tone is not excellent since this is a mixed light situation (window to the left, fluorescent light from the right) ; not a single camera can produce natural skin tone under these circumstances.
Price is way too high though.. who will buy it? For some this is 2 months salaries!
Stollen1234: skin tione are natural..but ist me or what..looks like the skin is not sharp at all
Sharpness is excellent, but DOF is shallow due to F1.4. Look at the hairs on the underlip! C'mon give the Canon engineers a break.
Greg Henry: Skin tone is decent (but not excellent). Sharpness isn't all that hot but depends on the lens of course. Maybe it's just me but it seems like it's just very slightly underexposed. The model is kind of creeping me out, though (has that, "I met him on Craigs List" look about him - yikes).
No, skin tone is not excellent since this is a mixed light situation (window to the left, fluorescent light from the right) ; not a single camera can produce natural skin tone under these lighting conditions.
cesaregal: "Intent, vision and skill make a great photographer".
I am often confused from the market.I'm always looking for the best camera and/or for the best lens.Is not the right way.Better idea would be signify my intent with the HW I have.Less technique and more intellect.
...and more time...
doctorbza: What a pathetic and embarrassing response from the majority of posters. I truly wonder if most of the trolls even bothered to do anything besides open the pics linked above. Did you even watch the video? Did you see the post-production work done on the landscape shots? Did you read anything on the blogs of the photographers? Did you look at any of their work before dragging their names through the mud?
While the band of fools creates a racket here, real photographers are patiently taking in details about this camera bit by bit, determining whether or not this tool will be a worthwhile addition to their workflow.
A photographers job is to create interesting, engaging work that communicates something to the viewer, and use the most appropriate tools available to do so. All the medium format digital backs in the world won't save you if your entire portfolio is comprised of shots of brick walls that rely on the tool to make the image a work of art.
I thought the intent of hiring pro's for the promotion of a new camera would be to show the best the new product has to offer. If that was indeed the case, they have made a very bad start. If I were a pro, I would never have posted these images. They do not really reflect their skills.
Isn't it the craftsmanship that produces the art and not the tool? In that sense it wasn't the fault of camera... That's just a poor excuse.
spencerspencer: For preliminary shots from a camera that hasn't been used in the wild before, I think the shots look pretty good. Especially the one in the pub and the shearing shed.
I'm not sure about Mr. Fletcher because his site is down as there is so much traffic hitting it at the moment. However, Mr. Coyne has been in Life, National Geographic and Time amongst others.
Really, a sad display of bad manners and lack of knowledge from so many posters today. You should be embarrassed.
Lack of knowledge perhaps, but they should have uploaded some decent pictures if these guys are really so talented. Missed opportunity...
M1963: I had the chance to see the photos taken by the australian photographers before they were published here at dpreview, which probably spared my computer from viruses and a thorough scan. Said photos are no big deal, as many commenters pointed out, but I think there is an explanation for this: the photographers had little time to use the camera. I know a portuguese photographer who maintains a photo website (www.fotodigital-online.com), who was lent an X-Pro1. He only had five minutes - yes, you read that right: five minutes! - to get accustomed to the camera and take some photos. Clearly it was not enough. In either cases image quality seems OK, but nothing to write home about. We'll have to wait for more conclusive images to appear before we can judge what this camera can do.
To be honest, getting accustomed to a camera only 5 minutes would be enough for me to figure out the Aperture preference setting and shoot some nice images (if the light was right). I think that is a poor excuse to show the stills of the landscape that are shown here; very dull lighting and uninspiring subject. Surely that can be done better. The shearers images are nice but not special. Poor choice of photographers, Fuji, if you ask me.
l_d_allan: I've found PS books by Martin Evening to be more useful than Scott Kelby books ... more depth and less fluff.
Totally agree; Martin Evenings's books (the Lightroom editions as well) are real gems full of valuable content and no gabble.
Wow, what a picture! Compliments! :-)