For many reasons, companies venture into integrated back stream supply. At some point the "supply" entity can become more or less strategic, more or less profitable, more or less resource dependent.
When you strip the overall contributions to and from this entity, and look at it on its own, it sometimes makes sense to split it out. If the entity is doing poorly, you let it stand on its own and fail. If it is doing well, you sell it with right of supply contracts.
designdog: Some of the basic pros/con for mirrorless seem unfairly skewed in this review. First, the size and weight issue. While it is true that camera size favors the mirrorless, when you factor in the size of the top lenses, the entire package weight and size difference becomes less significant. Also there is the ergonomics of a small(er) camera with a heavy lens to consider.
The "in the shot" feeling of shooting with a DSLR vs a mirrorless EV is also downplayed. Perhaps for those shooting sports and family action, but for images where composition and contemplation are important, the EV just did not cut it for me.
I tried an Alpha 7R II for a few months, and sold it to get a D810. thankfully I kept all of my F mount glass...
I use a DF for low light and portraits. works great with the 58mm 1.4G
One of my basic requirements is full-frame...
Some of the basic pros/con for mirrorless seem unfairly skewed in this review. First, the size and weight issue. While it is true that camera size favors the mirrorless, when you factor in the size of the top lenses, the entire package weight and size difference becomes less significant. Also there is the ergonomics of a small(er) camera with a heavy lens to consider.
I am not spending that kind of money for a camera keeps me from a true raw image. I don't care whether I can see it or not. If I cared about that, I would still be shooting 16MPX images.
Don't make excuses like "you really can't see it" or, "it really doesn't matter." That is condescending. What kind of thinking would have you introduce a high end camera with all those bells and whistles, yet cripple the output?
Do you like your Porsche that can go 200mph, or your Range Rover that excels off road? Let me (or the government) decide how far to take the technology...
Why is this a big deal? What is the real benefit of a mirrorless camera of this level versus a DSLR (when one is offered) similarly equipped?
-size/weight? When this lens is added not a big difference, and I don't see why DSLRs can't be made lighter/smaller.
-features? No reason a DSLR could not have all of this features when Sony releases the sensor, plus the better viewfinder experience.
To me it is one camera vs another camera: a D810 vs a A7R II, for example...
cinemascope: Ok, I'm drunk but I think this is very simple:
There's "photo-people" and "photography-people".
The photography industry had a lucky run with "photo-people" when things went digital. But now other industries can better cater for them. Give them something else and they'll jump at it again.
So now we are back at where the photography industry has always been: catering for "photography-people".
My 2yo son loves to be photographed. He makes poses, jumps between chairs, and loves to see what comes at the other end. Human nature? Does he care about what daddy is using?
I still remember when computers were sold mostly to "computer-people" :)
I basically agree with this concept. What we can't know, is the desirability of the high volume "photo-people" cameras vs the lower volume, higher price "photography-people" cameras, to the industry.
The industry is in danger of polarization. They are making more of the high end cameras (Sony 7R II) cater to the "photo-people" segment, while in fact these people will move to the phones.
I believe the technology is there to make a smaller, lighter, full frame, high definition, true DSLR that would preserve the requirements of the "photography-people" while evolving to a better product.
I am also a "computer-person", now using an iMac, with more computing power than my MacPro ever had, yet preserving the utility and practicality of the experience...
designdog: Sony innovations are driving the industry, but I would never own this camera:
1. not really 14 bit, and lossly compression of raw files
2. where are the fast prime lenses, after all this time
3. whoops, six months later there is an entirely new body and your is out of date
4. strap a 50mm 1.4 on it, with convertor, and it looks like an afterthought
"They are working on it" does not cut it for me, when you consider that Sony introduced the camera with this compression, and all of their other FF cameras also have it...
Sony innovations are driving the industry, but I would never own this camera:
It occurs to me, in reading these posts (and the responses to mine, WAY down there) that the folks with the most to gain in preserving the DSLR market should look at the same comments and develop a new range of DSLRs in response:size/weight/viewfinder features, etc.
So the ratio of a FF camera and high quality lens is somewhat fixed, for "equivalence", light gathering, whatever. Take the best FF sensor, the best FF fast lenses, the best in body stabilization, the best processors, etc. and package them in a new generation of lighter weight/ higher strength materials. (My thinking is that a lighter weight camera will need stabilization.)
With this strategy the investment side is on the packaging, not the sensor and lens technology. Hey, the result could be a mirrorless DSLR similar to the large Sonys, but lighter and smaller...
There are other considerations. For the images I am after, I want a full frame camera. (Full frame vs APS-C and smaller sensors is another debate.) Even though Sony has made some full frame mirrorless "ILC" cameras, when you couple the bulk of the lens required to the camera, not only is the size/weight savings less helpful, there is a size/weight disproportion that comes with a huge lens and a tiny camera, in terms of handling etc.
Rather than making sensors larger (MPs) the technology of making smaller sensors equal to or exceeding the quality of full frame seems to me to be the key to the future of the ILC camera. Today Fuji seems to be the player that has the sensor technology and the lens collection that makes the most sense here. Their next sensor step, if dramatic, could be something special for this trend...
People here who look simply at the specs or the price and compare this camera to smaller sensor point and shoot are missing the point. Really, comparing it to the X100S is missing the point as well.
This camera is about image quality, versatility, fun, and style. Fuji is just offering the best X100 at this point in time; later they may upgrade the sensor, but will that necessitate a lens and processor update as well?
Tilt/swivel LCD? I would never own a camera with one. For the 1% of the time you would use it, you carry the bulk and weight 100% of the time. Not to mention I never look at the LCD in shooting anyway...
Snikt228: Hopefully Lightroom 6 is soon to follow?
Another small bug fix and camera/lens profile update. Nothing spectacular. Did an AB comparison with this and C1 in Photoshop, CaptureOne still far, far ahead in raw conversion. Too bad...
victor china: so will it be maybe possible to export fuji xtrans dngs to DXO>?
maybe (although i am not sure about it from the way the diagram looks).
The easiest (and best) way to do this is to use LR to ingest and catalog files. When you have a keeper, remember the file name, and switch over to DXO for processing. (I use Capture One.) Then output it to Photoshop for pixel processing, sizing, sharpening, output. The original raw files remains untouched, and catalogued by LR.
Speaking as a Nikon user, I have an option for very sharp 50mm primes (Nikon 1.8, 1.4, Zeiss 2MP) and "portrait" primes with character and bokeh (58 1.4, Sigma 1.4, Voightlander 58 1.4).
What I don't have is a lens that does both. Will this be the one?
Now it auto focuses better than the camera it is targeted to compete with: the Leica M. Of course, it did before. Leicas don't auto focus.
Also auto focuses faster than a Leica M6.
Not faster than the Olympus. But my images look better, and I don't have a menu driven "P" mode system.
Get your expectations in line with the product you are reviewing.
designdog: What is missing, unfortunately discovered by me after I purchased it, is support for the Fuji X Pro1...
If you burrow down deep on their web site, which I just did this afternoon, you will discover a document that explaims their position. Here is the final sentence:
Although DxO Labs tries to respond to photographers’ requests to provide support for specific camera models, there are no plans for supporting the Fuji X-Pro 1 in the short term.
I have sent them an email asking for a refund, and requesting a bit more clarity on their web site.
What is missing, unfortunately discovered by me after I purchased it, is support for the Fuji X Pro1...
Most, if not all, comments here are supposition from people who have not read the new edition of the book. Just ordered mine.
Would not a good understanding of Zone principles help any photographer using spot metering rather than evaluative or average? Or in post processing? Or in merging HDR?
I doubt that most people using digital cameras have any idea about tonal range, EV, histograms — even aperture. The mere existence of a proven and well regarded system for visualizing this has to have a place in digital photography. The light is the same, even if the tools have changed.
Photozopia: No inbuilt Hybrid Viewfinder technology eh? Go Leica - make Fuji look like the shabby arriviste it truly is ..... (LOL - Sarcasm spoiler)
One thing that early reviewers/users of the Fuji X100 seem to miss is the improvements made with firmware releases, and the experience factor, as in reducing the focusing rectangle for faster AF.
Today, the X100 is a very responsive camera with excellent IQ, really nice JPEG rendering, great ergonomics and a great viewfinder. Fantastic low light capability.
Put the sensor of the X Pro 1 in an X200 and you are pretty much there...