juvx: Many of you on here don't seem to understand the purpose of firmware updates in 2015... You're used to Nikon and Canon sending a few out and fixing a bug here and there.
This update is NOT to fix bugs, its to upgrade the camera.
Fuji is not fixing bugs in this update it's a complete upgrade to the autofocus system. They are adding more and more features and improving the camera as time goes by. I really respect that and it's something that other players should be looking to do rather than releasing new bodies and forgetting about their customers. Adding completely NEW features. Canon and NIkon is been HORRIBLE at this.
As a Sony shooter, it seems Sony has started to take note and has been releasing some nice firmware updates with new features as well lately for the a6000. I hope this trend continues.
Sony improved functionality waaay back in 2008 for its A700 camera. Its not a new thing at all for Sony.
And DSLR cameras are less easier to upgrade compared to mirrorless cameras since mirrorless cameras performance has a lot to do with software implementation since AF performance is largely dependent on the software while in DSLRs the AF performance is dependent more on the phase detect AF system of the model in question.
I doubt most of the upgrades Fuji provided can be done with an existing DSLR unless it was prematurely released with buggy AF.
Old Cameras: A software update can be a question in itself. When PC's and cell phones are updated, they slow down and new bugs can be added. Extra lines of code require more cycles to chew through them, especially frustrating if the features being added are not things you care about. I would always prefer to review the results of an update before adding it, and ideally, be able to reverse it if I don't like the result. But if what Fuji offers is truly an improvement then it's a great benefit that they continue to support the product. The XT1, however, is still a current product on sale now. I'd be more impressed if they continue with these updates when the camera has been succeeded.
I have updated 4 of my cameras and two of them twice ! All upgrades improved both performance and functionality. The only drawback was one failed update which got rectified on second try.
cariarer: I'm browsing through the comments and I'm finally no longer able to keep my peace. All that is wrong in todays world is the impression of entitlement. Seriously. Fuji made a brilliant camera with a pro level price tag. People bought it for what it was. It's not perfect and it will never be. A modern digital camera is not a piece of wooden carving that is simply done at some point. It's complex technologie. Go and complain to God about all the bugs in the human body! Fuji put's a lot of thought and effort into it's gear and they really, really care. And all you nay sayers got to do: Oh, that's how it should have been from day one! You sold me a beta version! Were you not able to use it? Didn't it do what it is supposed to do from day 1? Be greatful for what you get as a gift, instead of believing you're entitled to the perfect product. It doesn't exists! It's just a path of improvment. There is no finish line. Things getting better all the time, but it will never be perfect.
^^ Thats a very negative way of looking at it. Most customers don't do tons of research when they buy stuff. Many go to a store, try and camera and just buy it. They shouldn't have to find issues later on when they start to use the camera.
Not saying the Fuji XT-1 was buggy but many earlier Fuji cameras like the X-Pro1 and X100 were practically Alpha versions that many first time customers were fooled into buying thinking they were fully working products and finding out that there were many issues.
Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner
way exceed my expectationsharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation
Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)
why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?
And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand
The GM1 lacks a viewfinder. Something very important for many people shooting in bright light. And neither does the LCD tilt.
And lets not forget the GM1 doesn't shoot 4k video and its default lens is very slow compared to the RX100. Of course the GM1 will have better IQ if you switch to a prime but the RX100 is more about being the best compromise in terms of IQ, convenience and size.
drivecancel: I bought a Fujifilm X100 used and upgraded it to FW 2.0 instead of buying an RX100, looking at the studio tests I made the right choice! (had to use X100S results)
^^ Well you didn't feel the need but look at the response your post got ! :P
And no the X100S and X100T have a 16 MP X-Trans sensor while your X100 has a 12.3 Bayer sensor. Both of them are very very different and a substantial improvement. I had the X100 sensor in my old A700 and while it was good then it was no match to my newer 16 MP sensor that the X100S and X100T improve upon.
FelixC2013: Sigma and Tamron reversed engineered the Canon and Nikon lens interface. They both assumed something about the Canon system and got it wrong. The interface is a proprietary design and Canon is under no obligation to share it with a competitor.
That is the major reason I would never buy a lens from Tamron, Tokina or Sigma only Zeiss.
Maybe not but we asked the store selling the lens for their own camera and it faced a different AF accuracy issue. The problem is it wasn't a consistent misfocus that it could be fixed with micro adjustment.
I am sorry but you are terribly terribly wrong. My friend wanted to buy a 35mm f1.4 Art for his camera. He tried FIVE lenses and all of them would not focus properly near the infinity range at f1.4. If you stopped down the DOF would be large enough to compensate and if you used multi point AF the hit rate was 50% which was better but at single point AF(no matter whether center point or off center point), focus was off at nearly 100%.
Two of my friends claimed their 50mm was focusing properly and I showed them similar issues in front of their eyes.
My friend grudgingly bought the Canon 35mm f1.4 L. Its not as sharp as the Sigma and my friend found the Sigma to be a superior lens as well as a significantly cheaper lens.
But he was using it for professional work so he didn't wish to work with a defective lens and so chose the Canon.
Depends on the type of lens I buy. For UWA and macro lenses where AF is not that important I generally skimp and buy 3rd party. But for large aperture lenses where AF accuracy is cirtical I wouldn't go for 3rd party even though lenses like the Sigma 24mm. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm are generally as good or better than first party and at lower prices but AF inaccuracies and inconsistencies can ruin your experience if you are a discerning user.
How much zoom does the X100 have ? And is it smaller than the RX100 ? Also how good is the video performance ? Does it have 4k ? Does it also shoot at 16 fps ?
jkrumm: Looks pretty much identical to version III so far.
In IQ yes. But in EVF, EVF lag, burst rate, video and AF tracking the IV will be better.
justmeMN: I wish the price was as "compact" as the camera. :-)
(It has a 1" sensor, but costs more than many APS-C DSLRs.)
You have to pay for the miniaturization. That's why a high end laptop may not match even a mid range desktop as the desktop has so size restrictions.
mgatov: Thank you for posting this. It led to me purchasing the Panasonic LX100... as I was really on the fence between these two cameras.
You can normalize the results in DPreview widget only. Just click the second last button from top right.
Mike FL: SONY likes users to "think" that new sensor is better in Noise/DR b/c larger photosite, but other than RX100-4 has 4K, there is really no meaningful difference in terns of Noise/DR from RX100-3.
As people have said stacked sensors is not about high ISO performance. BSI and stacked sensors improves ISO performance mostly for smaller sensors used in camera phones.
However you get much faster sensor readout so you get 16 fps, 1/32000 shutter speed, much improved tracking performance etc but no IQ advantages.
Markol: Ok now we know what the engineers were talking about when they said they're 5 years ahead of the competition- it can only meal in terms of read-out. Nice feat, no doubt, but the IQ seems to be identical accounting for copy variation. That's a bit of a bummer for such a "revolutionary" sensor when compared to a 3 year old sensor.I'd argue that THAT sensor was 5 years ahead and was the revolution, as cool as fast read-out is.
As mentioned above no one claimed a BSI sensor at this large size would make a big difference to high ISO performance.
BSI for small sensors does improve high ISO peformance but once you go larger the advantage diminishes greatly.
The main advantage is the higher sensor readout so you get 16 fps burst rate which no one offers and AF tracking should improve considerably as should the EVF lag.
Joseph Black: I bought the G1 X years ago and I'm really glad I didn't wait around for the slow march of technological improvement to give me something that amazed me. By that I really mean I'm pretty much over the desire to see cameras do something stellar, because I think we're past the point where that will ever happen again. Our expectations are too high and technology has serious obstacles to overcome in order to make a real leap...more likely to see iterative changes that will, in the long run, make our cameras progressively better.The RX100IV using a "stacked" sensor (evolution of BSI with added marketing flare just for effect) still doesn't beat the G1 X for noise at higher ISO. It also doesn't beat it at base ISO for detail. Yeah, there might be a slight edge in detail, but that's compared to a relatively ancient camera that back then was only $800. No doubt pushing base ISO on the Sony has a bit more latitude.4K is fine if you need it. EVF is fine if it's done right. Just a camera.
Well everyones needs are different. Most will find the G1X too big a camera to use. Its far bigger in size to the RX100 IV and even bigger than the original RX100 / RX100 II.
Stacked sensors mean little for high ISO performance and the results prove that. Stacked sensors allow for far faster sensor readout so that means more responsive viewfinder, faster burst speed, better video and better AF tracking.
And the G1X has a practically useless viewfinder while the RX100 III/IV have a very useful 100% OLED viewfinder.
Of course by virtue of its larger sensor the G1X will have slightly better IQ but once you normalize its 14 MP images to the 20 MP RX100 images the differences will reduce a bit.
And lastly while the G1X has a more useful tele range (albeit a very slow max aperture) the RX100 IV starts at a wider 24mm setting and while it maxes out at 70mm it still has a max aperture of f2.8
aftab: RX100 III and IV are noisier than LX100. Quite evident at ISO1600 and higher.
Normalize the output and the differences are far less between the two. Of course the LX100 will be still better. You can't really beat physics BUT the because the RX100 had 8 MP more the difference in sharpness and ISO isn't very high once you normalize the results.
And the RX100 is a more compact overall and a few 100 g+ lighter than the LX100 which is significant to some people who need a secondary camera.
olypan: After all the rabid hype from Amazon here's the cold shower. LX100 by a mile.
Depends. Per pixel LX100 is obviously better since it has a larger sensor but once you normalize the results the RX100 IV comes very close.
And the main benefits of stacked sensor is faster sensor readout for AF tracking and video.
Obviously the LX100 is a larger sensor camera and a fantastic one to boot so the smaller sensor RX100 IV will never really beat it in IQ but considering normalized IQ isn't terribly different between the two other parameters will come into play like AF, overall weight and size etc.
vadims: I wonder if Canon will ever fix their lenses that do not work well with Sony bodies (or rather Metabones adapter).
All my Canon lenses except 50/1.4 work fine. The 50 would not autofocus, and that is an expected behavior according to Metabones site.
Come on, Canon, it's time to take care of firmware in your lenses on other companies' bodies...
Why would they do that ? :P
I am a Sony user and I also use a Canon adapter but Canon will support their lenses on their own bodies. Not on some competitors body.
brendon1000: Sigh. One more case in point to avoid third party lenses for cameras.
Its not just Canon. Even Sony and Nikon have issues with 3rd party lenses.
It was fine when AF and technology was rudimentary. But now with live view, AF tracking, face detection etc these 3rd party lenses are showing more issues than ever.
I am slowly replacing all my 3rd party lenses with first party ones not because the first party ones are superior but because they will be compatible with my future bodies. Bodies come and go but lenses last far longer.
Sigh. One more case in point to avoid third party lenses for cameras.