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.
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
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.
rrccad: .....When it comes to Raw, the E-M5 II appears to give a very similar performance to its predecessor. This means it's still competitive against some Canon APS-C cameras, but lags behind the likes of Sony's a6000 or Nikon's D5500. And, if you compare the E-M5 II's ISO 6400 results to the ISO 6400 and ISO 12,800 output from those camera, (snip)..
is this really the case?
there's caveats there.
For instance in low light high ISO - it's really hard to say the A6000 is that spectacular, and I'd say at ISO 6400, the M5 II is actually better than the A6000.
Also the NX1 looks worse when compared RAW and low light than the M5 II using the same measure, as there's some kind of black clipping happening that complete destroys any sort of detail in the darker regions.
Looking in the area where you have the green fake grass patch in the dark corner doesn't match at all with what you are saying in the view as far as high ISO's.
@prossi - that is a benefit of the higher resolution, not reduced noise. Look at a nice grey or black patch under the low light setting and tell me the Sony looks any cleaner.
bluevellet: Low 80's usually means silver award nowadays. A few years back, it was scores in the 70's that equalled silver awards.
Relatively fast review in any case.
That's fair. Thanks for the clarification.
For about 2 years now I don't see ANY difference in APS-C vs 2x crop high ISO noise.
Yeah, almost nothing for "Cons" and still a silver. But the review was positive and I can't imagine someone not buying the camera based on Silver vs Gold award.
It kind of seems like they had to try really hard to come up with the Cons list. Looks like a winner for m4/3 and mirrorless fans.
mugupo: Wait till Sony A7000 which just around the corner, it will likely put this camera to shame. with EVF and better video function.
ALWAYS something around the corner. You have to jump on the merry-go-round sometime.
naththo: Your updated RAW file looks much better now. Much less steep in shadow is the main thing we are after. Too much shadow in contrast lose shadow detail fairly too much is a no no to photography.
I consider it a big deal. You should not have to RAW process your snapshots to make them look better than phone pics.
MontyMouse: Those who go on about the NX500 lack of EVF. Those of us who wear reading glasses need an adjustable EVF as we don't normally carry glasses. Also it's not fair to say just go and buy an NX1, the NX500 is a carry everywhere camera and this oversight is significant to us. I am invested in the NX system and I would like this camera to add to my NX lens collection but it would be the only camera I have where I have to take my reading glasses with me OR use AF and hope for the best.
MikeBruce: I am not sure if we are seeing mostly lens performance here but man these photos look flat and de-saturated. I would like to see some photos with a higher quality lens either way.
They were shot with the highest quality lenses, the two f2.8 zooms.
I was shocked how unappealing they looked, too. Maybe it's got a horrid JPEG engine?