"And there's a caveat to DxOMark's findings - the test data hasn't been analysed in exactly the same way, as RED's proprietary REDCODE format doesn't provide direct access to the Bayer pattern data."
It's funny how DXO goes on about how they can't test the Foveon and X-trans sensors because their 'scientific, bias-free' data requires them to work with a Bayer pattern. Along comes another proprietary format, and not only are they prepared to throw that convention out the window, but they give it the highest score of all time. Sounds incredibly fishy to me...
It's easy to be cynical because they only took this stand after bringing out a replacement model.
Nice choice of composition in all of these shots. I feel like the lens doesn't quite live up to the price they're asking for it though, at least not when you compare it to the value of Fuji's other lenses.
Hmm, you seem to have mirrored my concerns about the placement of the ISO dial and the untactile 4 way controller.
Wow, those new lenses are beasts. Can't wait to see what they'll be like mounted on the cameras!
ConanFuji: I've been asking this for a long time. 1/How does it differ from the a 3 yr Nex 5????2/Does it have better IQ?3/How long is Fuji going to be stuck in 16MP. It's been more than 5 years.
1) Access to some really sweet lenses.
This is a pretty awesome upgrade: you now get a camera with a bigger sensor than m4/3, with a longer zoom range than the standard kit zoom and a brighter lens than most, all in a body close to the size of the GM1. Really impressive.
Juandante: I'm tired of those 18-55 mm f/3.5. I really don't see the point of these lense.You put it in 18mm for prime, you are limited by the f/3.5.
You put it in 55mm for low DoF portrait, 55mm is too short for it.
I think this is a vicious stylé from those company just for us too buy more lense when we purchase a DSLR.
An f/2 zoom would keep the price down? No one other than Sigma makes a zoom anywhere near f/2, and that costs $800.
It's a necessary limitation given that the brief is to make a lens that is both small, covers a standard zoom range and doesn't cost too much. For someone who's still a beginner the max aperture isn't too big an issue, especially given how good stabilisation and high ISO are nowadays.
Who was this designed for, crab people?
Usee: Still unreliable ISO numbers from Fuji,which should be mentioned and taken into account...
Fuji: 1/60 @ F5,6
Canon / Samsung: 1/100 @ F5,6
...at the same scene with ISO 200 setting!
Again, the Fuji ISO numbers are sadly nearly one stop beside reality......otherwise probably a fine camera. ;-)
You do have to question what the point of an ISO dial is if the ISO isn't close to standard. Makes using an external meter or even Sunny 16 unreliable.
Quick request for you guys to put this camera through its paces shooting motion. Sports, animals, airplanes... anything.
tkbslc: How come Canon can build a $250 22mm f2 with a metal body and sharp optics, but Olympus wants double that? (3-4x given the current $125 street price of 22mm). And the Canon 22mm is nearly half the length of the 25mm.
m4/3 has some great lens options, they just all seem priced about double what I'd expect.
One is a 50mm equivalent, and one is a 35mm equivalent. Apples and oranges.
I wasn't really that interested in this camera until I read about the viewfinder specs. Now I'm interested, Fuji. Very interested.
That's a damn good price for a mirrorless camera with an EVF, stabilisation and a small-form body. I like where the market is going.
Lucas_: "World’s fastest AF of 0.08 seconds" - does that include DSLR's or is it among mirrorless? How does it compares with Sony's A7/7R?
They do that with every release. It's quite embarrassing… I don't have a problem with the AF speed of Fuji cameras, but the idea that they have the world's fastest AF is laughable at best.
Camera only gets a silver award instead of a gold one? First world problems...
M DeNero: I see comments like "Wonderful controls!" and "Great ergonomics!" Pardon me for asking, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but is there really any benefit to these retro designs other than aesthetics? Modern SLRS have precision, customizable controls that mostly lie right under the finger tips of one hand. You can make adjustments without even thinking about it, while keeping the other hand on the zoom or focus ring. These retro designs seem to have nicer industrial design, but after handling several they seem very clumsy to me operationally. Please enlighten me.
Not all SLR control systems are as rosy as you make them out to be. Nikon in particular earned my ire for forcing me to hold down multiple buttons at once to do exposure comp, for burying ISO control in menus, for putting customisable buttons in very difficult to reach places, etc.
Fuji controls aren't perfect, but I like how they handle exposure parameters better than any other camera from this era.
forpetessake: It looks like Fuji is betting on lenses rather than bodies. Their lens offering looks great, their bodies suck. The enthusiasts put lenses ahead of the bodies, the general public does the opposite. I wonder if Fuji will be able to make enough money of the tiny enthusiast niche.
XE-1 is the best camera I've ever owned. Having great glass to go with it is a real sweetener.
My grandkids are sure going to look at me funny when I tell them that WW3 started over a straw poll on a camera website...