tkbslc: I'd suspect most would find the 14mm f2.5 to be just as useful, slightly wider and much cheaper and compact.
m4/3 is already overcrowded in the wide-normal prime department. Not sure why we needed this one.
I'm surprised people are still commenting on this. Ironically, in the year since I made the abovecomment, I actually switched to a GX7 and own the 15mm f1.7. Brilliant lens and probably my favorite. I'm alright disagreeing with the past version of myself. I'm open minded. :)
darngooddesign: On the X100T, you can solve the high ISO nose reduction by shooting RAW at ISO1600 with -2EC and then use the camera's RAW converter to push the exposure by two stops. This essentially gives you ISO6400 jpgs with ISO1600 quality.
....With severely blown highlight?
My biggest complaint was that the Amazon Prime Photo does not leave my images in the folder structure that I have. Finding and sorting and restoring them were difficult. I went with a "Backup" service instead because they are more file based than photo based. Costs me about the same as the "unlimited everything" service advertised above.
FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
I know, Richard, I'm just being sarcastic because these equivalence arguments always get a bit too serious and are only relevant if one is actually moving between formats frequently.
Andreas Balko: 81% and silver award?The same rating as the Olympus E-M5 II?And this without ...- IBIS stabilisation?- changeable optics- flip-screen- High Res shoot...I do not understand.
And the images are not as crisp as from the E-M5 in my eys.
PS: I belonged the x-100 and loved it.But it is not comparable to the functionality of my OM-D E-M5
Anyone that knows enough about cameras to give any significance to Leica know that Fuji isn't Leica.
UnitedNations: What will they bring for the 4th generation X100?
It would be easier in a fixed lens "compact" because it wouldn't involve complicating your camera system. Of course, then your "best" camera would be the compact, so it would cause marketing issues.
LFPCPH: @Richard Butler
"... cameras such as the Olympus 35RC sold pretty well as recently as the 70's." "recently" - WOW !!!
Many of us readers were born as recently as the 70s!
How does it relate to my 8x10 sheet film? Just trying to make sure I cover all my bases.
Boxbrownie: It's a lovely little camera but that's one hell'o'va price for a compact, the new Oly 5II with lens costs same/less.
A lot of margin for fashion in there.
Yeah, there are a lot of competitive mirrorless camera + 35mm equivalent lens combos one could make with $1300 - even within Fuji's own system. I think you'd have to really want the hybrid finder to fork out for this one.
nicolaru: Hi FogdeanDurn.It is a 23mm F2. 23 X 1.5 = 34.5mm
I thought it was 55mm f4.8 equivalent. Or am I thinking Pentax 645 again?
kadardr: They could come with a FF X100. Would buy in a second.
Sony kind of made one.
jadot: I'll save you from scanning through all the comments here:
"Fuji Needs to put a bayer sensor in this camera""My Sony is better""No it's not""I'd buy it if it was Full Frame""It's too expensive""X-Trans Rules"
You probably already own the camera and know how good it is. Or you don't. That's OK too.
Could we add something about how m4/3 has a much smaller equivalent aperture? I feel like every comment thread needs to mention that somewhere.
You might as well be comparing one student's History grade with another's Math grade. They aren't even taking the same test!
These are not in the same category, scores are not comparable.
HeyItsJoel: Great camera, not-so-great price.
Wait until the X100U comes out and you can get it for $600.
AlexisH: "16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"
This is beginning to be tiresome. We've been subject to megapixel wars for years and now that companies are finally focusing on developing interesting products (like this X100T), do we really need to prod them to get back to cramming megapixels on sensors?
Guess what: if I have the option of buying a 10MP camera or a 40MP one, I'll buy the 10MP one, all other things being equal. The only thing that would make me buy the 40MP one is if it could generate 10-20MP RAW files besides 40MP ones. Canon does this, but they're the only ones AFAIK.
"more detail" is arguable. Where will I see this detail other than 100% crops? I guess if I print 40x60" and use a magnifying glass.
I didn't see any major difference in the ability to enjoy my photos or print normally when I went from 8 to 10 to 18MP. I shot my 18MP camera at 10MP mRAW just because I didn't see any benefit to the higher res images.
Primary storage is quite cheap, but many of us keep several copies for backup as well as RAW + JPEGs. That extra 10MB of file size can quickly turn into 100MB x tens of thousands of images. And then I have to transfer them over 5Mbit upload to my cloud provider.
MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.X100T 81% Silver Award?????
Maybe when you keep reviewing the same warmed over camera 4 times it becomes less exciting.
Marty4650: If their policy has been "to make cameras compact" since 1936, then someone must explain the Olympus E3 (2007) and E5 (2010).
Those two cameras were just as big and heavy as a Canon 5D with a sensor 1/4th the size.
Having large options within a overall compact system does not mean you have abandoned your goals.
deep7: Just a correction on your caption under the 300mm/f4 photo. The lens, in fact, is exactly as fast as a 600mm/f4 prime on a so-called "full-frame" format! That is, at the same sensitivity and wide open, you would use exactly the same shutter-speed to get the same exposure.
In practice, focal lengths like that can be very depth-of-field limited. To shoot the same depth of field on the 35mm format would require stopping down the lens two stops, making the larger format's lens only quarter as fast for the same photo! (Or you could throw away the "ISO" advantage instead.)
After all these years...
Even if you accept all the equivalence, would a 600mm f8 lens on FF really be a suitable alternative? Only AF on pro bodies and it will still be very long.
mpgxsvcd: I would love to see an example where 16 megapixels simply isn’t enough. Most kit lenses won’t even resolve that much detail. Dpreview had to resort to the “exotic” 42.5mm F1.2 lens to get consistent results in the high resolution mode.
40MP on 2x crop is like 160MP on FF in terms or resolution per area of lens.
D1N0: With aps-c moving to 24mp and even 28, 16 is just not going to cut it anymore. Eventually m43 will be a niche for street photographers who don't crop.
People printed large with 8MP back when that was the new thing.