InTheMist: Is it fast?
I was disappointed by my x100s: slow to start, slow to focus, slow to do ANYTHING. Great images though.
Sony user here but I used my friends XE-1 for a bit and was pleasantly surprised by its responsiveness. It was pretty snappy to do anything and this is supposedly much faster than the XE-1.
QuarryCat: Canon has a 2,0/100 mm which is a little cheap build but very sharp, with fast AF and really good bokeh -- Fuji is heavy - 80g more- Fuji is long 10,5 to 7,4 by Canon- no image stabilization- as sharp and nice painting like Canon???- Price is more then twice as much
or 200g less then Canon EF 2,0/135 mm for full frame - but same price...- not really short (11,2 cm)- no really good magnification 1:5 (1:5,2)- really expensive- as sharp as Canon???
I try to like Fuji - but the prices are extreme,I don't like the aperture ring with the ⅓ steps and the easy turning - I hate the sunshades for all the Fuji lenses since now.
I would give it a try for 500 but 1000 is as crazy as Olympus for it's 1,8/75 mm.
^^ Please don't tell me on how to do my job. My needs are different and the 6D failed to meet my needs so I don't use it anymore period.
I shoot with two bodies and having a flash on both bodies is cumbersome in my work environment so only one body has a flash at all times and the other is paired with a fast lens like an 85mm f1.4 or a 35mm f1.4.
I am comparing cameras like the Fuji XT1 where the AF system is more similar to the 5D mk 3 than a rebel like AF system of the 6D. Even the D610 has a far great AF point coverage though I have personally never used a D610 for my work.
Paul Verhoeven: Why Canon can sell FULL FRAME 85/1.8 USM for $350 and Fuji has to ask $950 for APS-C 90/2? No OIS in either (although even that adds maybe $20 to cost, just like WR).Honestly, such overpricing is ridiculous.
Anyone comparing this lens with the Canon 85mm f1.8 obviously has no real idea what he/she is talking about. The Canon 85mm f1.8 is a pretty sharp lens but its an old optic with contrast that is no where near as good as better 85mm lenses. Neither is the bokeh anything great.
roytempest: It would save people a lot of time if DPR could just copy and paste the comments from below the previous Fuji product launch (How can Fuji expect anyone to but anything if they don't have IBIS?, expensive relative to FF, it's quite big, hipsters, my lens is better than yours, etc., etc.)
Price is not and end all to know performance. If Sigma launches an 85mm f1.4 ART series I would bet it would match or outperform the Fuji while selling for around the same price and being a stop faster too.
^^ I regularly use a Sony A7 with adapter and A mount lenses to shoot weddings in low light and from time to time I need to use a 5D mk 3 or a 6D. I get almost the same amount of AF misses with either my A7 and the 5D mk 3 but that is more to do with my familiarity with the A7 rather than the lack of the 5D mk 3 capabilities. My friend who shoots with me gets more accurate results.
However the 6D is still by far the worst of the bunch. Other than the single AF point the other points are pretty much useless.
And don't forget the Fuji XT10 has an AF assist lamp which helps in low light while the Canon doesn't have one.
If you want ultimate IQ then yes you need a 35mm sensor (not considering the far more expensive and limited MF systems). The Fuji is not the ultimate in IQ but considering the smaller footprint and excellent IQ the differences aren't that stark. I have used a Fuji too extensively and IQ was not something I was disappointed in.
Seems to tick a lot of check boxes - small and light weight, not too expensive, built in flash, articulating screen, 4k video. No real negative other than its not weather sealed like the more expensive EM5 II and lacks a GPS.
Other than that it seems Panasonic has a winner in this camera.
iudex: s there any reason for limiting ISO 100 to JPEG only? I can imagine that ISO200 as the lowest sensitivity in RAW mode is too high for a shot with large aperture, e.g. f1,4, making outdoor portraits impossible (or needing an ND filter).
ISO 200 is the native ISO figure which is where you get the best performance from the sensor. Similar to other sensors like some m43 sensors. The advantages are you get higher shutter speeds at the native ISO which is a good thing. Negative is of course when you hit the max shutter speed and you don't want to stop down the aperture. Or if you do long exposure photography.
TwoMetreBill: Another piece of jewelry sized for the hands of an 8 year old.
And you have an OMD EM1 ...
Whats that a slightly bigger piece of jewellery for the hands of a 10 year old ?
Get a real camera like a Mamiya Leaf Credo which is meant for men rather than toys like the OMD and XT10
JacquesBalthazar: It will be interesting to compare real life images from XT1 + this 90mm against something like the Nikon Df + Zeiss 135mm f2. Both are 16MP, so comparison can be pretty straightforward.
Construction/design point to potentially a very high performer, very solid, also mostly metal, but with great AF and weather resistance. Even closer focus than Zeiss.
The Zeiss 135 is a stellar perfomer as we know, but a bit fiddly to deploy due to MF and weight.
At almost half weight and half cost, this Fuji is truly appetising! Hope it delivers to that level of expectation!
Halfwaythere - Shooting experience also matters. And after using big EVFs moving to a small tunnel pentamirror viewfinder was a most vexing experience when I used a friends D5500 for a while. And the body felt so cheap and plasticy that I didn't enjoy the shooting experience too much never mind that the IQ that I got was amazing.
That is also one of the reasons people still use film these days. The experience is different compared to shooting digital.
You really can't compare old outdated lenses to a modern weather sealed prime lens.
Just compare the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART to a Nikon 50mm f1.4 D. The Nikon is a very sharp lens stopped down to f4 but wide open there is no competition and the Sigma is far sharper and has more contrast.
The Canon 100mm f2 is 1990 optic and so its design is 25 years old. Lens design hasn't stood still and I would bet that the 90mm is a far better lens than the old Canon 100mm.
The 135mm f2 is no doubt a superb lens but you need to spend on a good FF body and no the 6D with one good AF point doesn't count. You need something like the 5D mk 3 to compare to the Fuji XT10 or XT1. And then the 5D mk 3 is huge and heavy and most people who go to Fuji are fed up of huge and heavy bodies.
beavertown: One thing that Canon will always ahead of Nikon is their color rendition.
It compensates their use of inferior sensor.
If Canon used Sony sensor, there would be no competition between C & N in terms of image quality.
The 1" Sony sensor that Canon uses in the G7X tops the 1" sensor chart that proves everything.
Color rendition is a purely personal preference. I frankly don't like Canon colors.
Mssimo: Question: As far as shot noise... Would a APS-C camera with a speed booster have the same low noise performance as a full frame assuming the same lens is used?
No. Not at all. Noise is mostly to do with the sensor not the lens.
tkbslc: Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.
^^ I don't have a single m43 piece of equipment. :P
After using FF I don't find any smaller sensor worth it anymore.
King Penguin - Your fisheye is NOT equivalent. Its an old age optical design meant for film cameras. The Olympus is also 1.3 EV faster which itself shows that its not equivalent.
And no m43 is NOT about being small light. It CAN be small and light and if want large and heavy you can get that too.
My friend uses two bodies. A Panasonic GM1 with 12-35mm and 20mm f1.7 lens when he wishes to travel light and an EM1 with 12-40mm when he needs better performance.
The EM1 with 12-40mm is still much lighter than say a D810 with 24-70mm lens.
Now I am not a great m43 fan. I use FF myself (have A7 & A7 II with DSLR lenses via adapter) but when I struggling with a 9 kg backpack when travelling I wonder if all this bulk is worth it.
h2k: I felt the "slide show" format not useful for this string of very similar photos which often didn't show anything new between clicks. I'd very much prefer this kind of information in a conventional text, with only a fraction of the illustrations.
I have even said that before about other "slide shows" and was told by forum members that this format is good to create "clicks", which are desired by websites. But i think in this case here - with one very similar photo hunting the next - the "slide show" format is stretched to the limit.
+ 1 Novemdecillion !!!! I love Dpreview but these scrolling stuff is irritating like hell and I never bother myself to click through so many times just to read a few small snippets. Makes zero logical sense to me.
I suppose it makes them feel good about their decision to go large and bulky when they see a few large mirrorless lenses. They of course conveniently forget there are plenty more mirrorless lenses that are far smaller and lighter than any FF equivalent lens.
brownie314: I don't get Tokina. They have been successful with wide angle DX zooms, but the rest - they seem to just be copying zoom ranges and aperture ranges from other manufacturers. I don't think this strategy will work for them. Why not look for something unique or a gap in the offerings of one of the majors? Why aim straight for where CaNikon are strong?
^^ IMO that makes sense if their copy is either substantially cheaper than the OEM lens or has some advantage. Their 70-200mm is surely going to flop as both OEM versions are already great lenses and the Tokina's price is very close to the OEM lenses. This lens should be around $800 less which is significant enough to make people consider it but that puts it in similar price range of a used OEM lens.
People buy the Tokina 11-16mm or 11-20mm f2.8 because the OEMs don't have any f2.8 UWA lenses for APS-C.
Similarly the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC is sold mainly for its VC functionality which is lacking in OEM lenses
King Penguin: So this Fisheye is larger and heavier than my FULL FRAME Nikkor 16mm AF 2.8D......mmmmm, the benefits of M43....LOL.
Sorry M43 guys, but facts are facts!
King Penguin - The m43 system is versatile enough that you can go very small and light or you can go big and heavy too. You can have both. If you find the 8mm f1.8 too big for you there is a very good Samyang 8mm f2.8 for $200 that is pretty sharp and smaller and ligher than your Nikon 16mm f2.8.
And weather sealing is meant for all sorts of conditions. My Sigma 10-20mm got splashed by a rogue wave that sneaked up on me when I was shooting at the beach. I had to stop my shoot and thoroughly wipe down the Sigma as it lacks any sort of weather sealing.
If I was using the Olympus with a sealed body then I would simply wipe the front element and continue shooting.
@Fry13 - Whoops ! Ha ha, what was I smoking ? Yeah 1.3 EV faster. :P
Too bad I can't change my statement. Enough crap already posted and now I added to it. :P
Sigh. The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 and Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 both have the same aperture and more or less the same FOV when using the 14-24mm on a 35mm sensor camera like the Nikon D810.
However the Olympus is both cheaper, smaller and lighter too.
The Olympus FE 8mm f1.8 gives approx the same FOV as the Nikon 16mm f2.8 but the Olympus is 2.3EV faster than the Nikon. However to match the Olympus DOF, the Nikon needs to stop down to f3.5 approx. Wide open the Nikon gives shallower DOF.
Also the Nikon 16mm f2.8 is a pretty old lens and in all likelihood not going to be as contrasty and flare resistant as the Olympus. Plus the Olympus focuses much closer leading to more extreme perspectives.