offtheback: From a quick review of the comments,he may regret the photo being posted on DPREVIEW.
he is taking one for the team coming onto dpreview after what he learned
i'm glad people are against any sort of innovation. canikon all the way!
camera gear really brings out the best in people
Johannes Zander: So no need for autofocus?And can it take video which can be re-focused? Would be great, no need for focus puller any more.
still requires autofocus. there is a range around which you can effectively refocus
nice sample photos. the image quality is quite nice too. tempting..
i like the ultra chiseled ultra clean look, very apple
aliasfox: Sports is an obvious use case. Sports news is usually viewed on the web or newsprint, so 5MP is fine. With the Lytro, the photographer never has to wait for any kind of focusing - no PDAF, no CDAF, no focus lag whatsoever. As soon as Lebron jumps to make his basket, the photographer hits the shutter, focuses later for the perfect shot every time.
With light field, it should be possible to imitate a FF camera at F/2.8 - set the lens at 85mm equivalent and get FF style portraits anytime. An event photographer could use this to tweak images to clients' desires ("I want Mom over there to be in focus" or "Blur the background more, it's too distracting"). It essentially decouples the artistic (DoF) from the exposure (aperture) equation.
Obviously, neither of these are necessarily common use cases, and this field (no pun intended) still has a ways to go. But if they keep developing it, who knows. In 3-4 years we might have a high ISO, fast shooting FF model with 120 MR/16MP output.
Since this camera is using software algorithms to render a final image based on depth information at every pixel (as far as I know) it can blur the 'background' as much as it wants to emulate any type of lens, in a way. Kind of like how the new Google camera bokeh trickery works. Certainly not 'real' dof effect but as long as it's good enough for appearances...
cool, this gives my x100s a little more variety, as my only high quality non-compact camera. that's pretty much what i want, for my purposes of shooting the same old locations on my walks and hikes with different focal lengths, different ideas. not exactly the most cost effective solution for 28, 35, and 50mm f/2.0 shooting but the only one that is silent and fits in a pocket (at least in one mode of operation).
REDred Photo: I bought the X-E2 in December and loved the image quality and character of the images... but I just couldn't get totally comfortable with the "rangefinder" form factor. I took advantage of a long exchange period and ordered the X-T1 as a replacement... wow! Just what I wanted!
I'm using this camera with a collection of older Contax Zeiss manual focus lenses and I could not be happier with the results. I just have a few requests for user interface improvements:
1. Custom Q Menu. Many of the options on the Q menu don't apply to me since I'm using manual lenses... it would be wonderful to choose what items are available in the Q menu.
2. Focus Peaking Function Button.Sometimes I want focus peaking and sometimes I don't. It would be nice to assign the front function button to focus peaking on/off
3. Smaller Spot Metering Square (with no corners)The spot metering square is kind of odd... just a little too big and I often find the square shape difficult to use. How about a circle?
re: 2 focus peaking function button: you can press and hold focus assist button to bring up MF Assist menu, to change MF options
Michael Ma: I almost bought a wide teleconverter for my fixed lens camera decade ago before I got my first DSLR a few years later. I am still glad to this day that I didn't make the purchase even though I had an itch to buy it for months.
In theory, it'll never perform as well as a descent prime lens on a ILC/DSLR but it's priced like one. When the X100S is replaced with it's successor in a short few years, you'll just be left with heavy glass with no compatibility with anything to be released in the future and no resale value. It will be in the box labeled "what was I thinking".
if the quality is as good as the x100 wide converter, i'm sold. i love the 28mm wide. there is a small loss of contrast, and a bit of distortion, but sharpness is just as good as without.
it's mainly about having a little variety for me to shoot. the x100s is my only large sensor camera, so having a few focal lengths with very high image quality is about all i need. the pinhead zoom cameras and premium compacts have me covered otherwise
i know that the practical intj type people at my workplace who scoffed at the concept and design of the x100 would be even more disdainful of people who purchased a monster teleconverter to add onto a fixed lens camera that is supposed to be discreet and compact.
but screw those people i want this. i love my x100s for the fun of taking photographs and this would add a little variety to the experience. 28, 35, 50mm.. x100s has me set for life!
Zeisschen: What will be the aperture? And what will be the FF equivalent of it?
i would guess that exposure-wise, it will act like an f/2.0 lens. the wide converter didn't suddenly make exposures brighter even though it 'shortened' the focal length. It should act like an f/1.6 lens if the f-number truly changed, but I can assure you it doesn't become 1/3 stop brighter.
So, I would guess the same thing would happen with the tele converter. maybe it would become a little dimmer due to transmission loss, but it's not restricting the aperture.
think of it like a magnifying glass. when you look through a magnifying glass there is some transmission loss on the glass but it's not reducing the aperture of the pupil to your eye.
xeriwthe: when comparing fuji x-series (X-T1, X-E1, X-E2, X-Pro1) series cameras to other cameras (sony, canon, samsung, etc.) ,it is important to note that fuji requires almost twice as much time exposing the image to reach the same level of brightness. thus you should be comparing fuji at double the ISO of other brands (e.g. fuji x-T1 at ISO6400 and Samsung NX300 at ISO3200), to get a better idea of equivalent sensor performance.
with ISO accounted for, there are aspects of the x-trans image quality that one could still argue are superior. compare the detail in the hair of the pictures of the women, between the x-t1 at ISO6400 and the Samsung NX300 at ISO3200. There is more dimensionality to the hair on the X-T1, where it is mostly flat with a bit of noise on the NX300. Or compare detail in the paintbrushes bristles. There's just a smidgen more detail, and a more natural look, to the detail on the fuji images.
anyway, x-trans is not always better, but it does have real advantages.
I'm sorry if I came off like I am trying to make one sided claim. I don't ignore or deny what you say, regarding raw. I am sorry I did not specifically mention that with proper RAW processing, the NX300 and equivalent bayer sensor cameras will produce superior images to the Fuji X-trans. It is true and I hope everyone understands this.
But I am trying to point out the real advantages of xtrans, even with ISO inflation accounted for. For example, hair texture at high ISO is preserved better in the JPEG produced by the camera.
Please try to understand I see benefits in both and am trying to make this clear for people who want to understand what the actual benefits are.
i don't see how you can call the flatness of the texture on hair, paintbrushes, hair, etc. of nx300 at ISO 3200 vs Fuji XTrans at ISO6400, closer to the 'reality' of the scene. at ISO100, yes NX300 is closer to reality, but not as ISO increases.
ok, i'm not really in this to fight, only want to point out the advantages/disadvantages of xtrans, especially in terms of camera JPEG output and equivalent ISO (accounting for fuji's ISO trickery) processing. as much as people like to poo-poo xtrans it does have real advantages. you don't have to admit it, fine
yep, i was actually calling you out, was going to reference your criticisms and comparisons of nx300 vs x-t1 but ran out of words.
as long as we are playing this game, other things to note: the way details are rendered in general, on the nx300 vs x-t1, or more generally bayer vs x-trans. the x-trans image has a slightly different appearance, a little more water colory yes, but also slightly less artifact-ed due to lower sharpening. the nx300 image is pretty coarse and chunky, in area around the easel, while it is more natural and smooth on the x-t1.
don't get me wrong i i love bayer images, but the sharpening artefacts can get obnoxious. i learned new appreciation for the art of sharpening after seeing how x-trans has a different, not better, just different look
when comparing fuji x-series (X-T1, X-E1, X-E2, X-Pro1) series cameras to other cameras (sony, canon, samsung, etc.) ,it is important to note that fuji requires almost twice as much time exposing the image to reach the same level of brightness. thus you should be comparing fuji at double the ISO of other brands (e.g. fuji x-T1 at ISO6400 and Samsung NX300 at ISO3200), to get a better idea of equivalent sensor performance.
i am looking forward to seeing images from this. i'll bet they're going to look really good :) mm fuji
when will some non money grubbing company finally knock adobe off it's pedestal and release SW that everyone wants and uses? good lord, greed + SW is going to be the end of humanity
SuvoMitra: Yes, well done, Fuji. Nice cameras and great support. I've stayed with the classic X100, which is a different camera now with FW 2.0. Also, the WCL-X100 is amazing if a 28mm equiv is sometimes preferable, without loss of quality. For me, the X100+WCL functions as two different cameras that do different things in combination with other cameras/focal lengths.
i have an x100s with the WCL, the main difference I see is with the contrast of the image. The image definitely looks a bit less contrasty, which is what you'd expect going through several extra layers of glass.
also, the bokeh is not as nice with the adapter.. photos taken close up at wide apertures suffer from some weird bokeh artifacts
i see no difference in sharpness.. i could be just delusional and biased by what i've read but it almost seems sharper at f2.0 with the WCL than without