b craw: Leica always prompts polarized opinions. I am not in blind support of their cameras - they hit and miss, as do all makers - but to bemoan the build as gimmickery in an attempt to simply command excessive price is a less than inspired perspective. Leica, particularly in film cameras, has historically focused on solid and clean builds. And, many including myself have appreciated this as a matter of feel; that feel as holistic element in the photographic experience. Add to this consistently good optics and performance, and the price becomes either reasonable or not, based on what individuals value. As to the exact feel and performance of this model, I will withhold judgment until more information emerges, or, preferably, I use it. But, I do find it somewhat obnoxious when so many here have reduced it to status symbol; for a good many photographers, it has never been about that. And, if we are to go down such a presumptive road, can we not indict some full frame users as simply posturing, defaulting to a fashionable sign of one being a serious photographer (and at considerable cost).
I have used M's in the past but todays prices have made Leica a boutique brand. Looks like it would be fun to use though.
Shamael: After having photo cameras that shoot video, we have now a video camera that can shoot photos. How deep we have fallen in the last years. Maybe in a few years it will include a coffee maker, a phone and a TV modulator.
2 mpix for picture ridiculous, for video in FF a step forward. For those who dream of the 500 000 iso clean shot, they are served now. It is just sad, and understandable, that this high iso shooting folly is made on the expense of resolution. 12 mpix is ridiculous and we come back to the time of the first digital consumer camera, Nikon's d70, which had the same resolution with the 6 mpix APSC chip. For me, the day we get a correct chip in 24 and higher pixel count that can do 500 000 iso clean, I will speak about an evolution in sensor technology. Making the pixels bigger and reducing their count is just faking you, it is no evolution at all. Maybe Nikon will now counter attack with a 8 mpix FF for a next D5 or Df II, to get you clean shot at 1 million ISO.
No convection oven...deal breaker. ;-)
justmeMN: No, Kodak isn't reborn. Now, it's just a hollow brand name, owned by an obscure company.
If Kodak did that Fuji is doing they would have a chance...maybe.
medon78: What's that strange colors on the left side of the building, towards the sun?
Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.
I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.
I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.
With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.
Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!
Both are time consuming processes. However, after using a 'digital darkroom' I have no desire to go wet again. ;-)
Halstatt: I wholly subscribe to the comedy of companies and fan boys -- after hawking the benefits of digital for 25 yrs., now attempting to revive the "look" of film with pixels and the feel of older cameras.
Digital, primarily, has given us incredible resolving power. So amen to that.
But has anyone considered reviving the film industry and marrying the best aspects of digital to it? Cellulose looks different! Period. The formulas are there for rebuilding the beauty of film. All the formulas.
Naturally our ADD suffering invincibles won't be able to hack it. Too much work. Not fast enough. Gotta have those artifacts.
Is that such a bad thing?
hotpot65: Excellent interview with insightful answers.
I agree that Fuji released too many models and it was interesting to read that the Bayer CFA in the X-A1 'surprised' them (albeit in conjunction with their image processing - smart answer!)
Comments on earning customer trust are nice to hear and Fuji have borne this out with updates even for older models.
After buying an X-M1, a friend's first question was 'Is it a DSLR' ?.Looking a little puzzled at the petite X-M1, I then took a photo of his wife with the 35mm lens. They were both impressed.
The vast majority of people equate quality photos only with DSLRs and smaller cameras with convenience/gadget driven smart functionality. So I think the Fuji representative is right about education.
The vast majority of people equate quality photos only with DSLRs and smaller cameras with convenience/gadget driven smart functionality.
Agreed. I may be in the minority but I am totally happy with a small camera with great lenses and I can't afford to play in the Leica sandbox.
nazeddie: I'm glad they made the decision to release upgrades to older models keeping them up to par with the latest. That does not prevent me from buying a newer model in the future. I will invest again in Fuji because I know that they will keep me up to date with the latest features and upgrades. I have already invested in 4 lenses and in a year or two I will probably upgrade just the body. I liked this interview as well, the honesty and candor only fortifies what I know to be a company that listens to the customers and acts on it. Thumbs up to Fuji!
The commitment to the discontinued X-100 and the sale was all I needed to get an XE-1 and some lenses. No worries here.
joyclick: Fuji should give some thought to the handgrips on their X series cameras,they are difficult to hold.
Lensmate has a thumb grip that excellent. Transform the camera IMHO>
nicolaiecostel: I don't want to sound like a troll, but a 20-40 focal ratio combined with a 2.8-4 aperture would have made sense in 1984.
Much higher ISO's are the norm now.
AbrasiveReducer: At the risk of stating the obvious, omitting a zoom, by itself, will be unacceptable to most people. Lamenting the fact that it does not offer anything from sweep panoramas to a built-in phone with hologram generator is really beside the point. It will either give better image quality in exchange for the inconveniences and price or it won't. This is a bad analogy, but shooting 4x5 is slow and a hassle but people did it, and some still do. Why?
but shooting 4x5 is slow and a hassle but people did it, and some still do. Why?
Because the IQ can be stunning. This camera will do it for $1000 and it is compact. I think I want one but will wait and see....
Curlynob: I've owned an X10 for a little over 2 months. It's a beautiful camera that has revitalised my interest and enthusiasm for photography. I'm pleased that Fuji are going to fix the problem, and when the time comes, I will send my camera in to be upgraded. I only hope that Fuji don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...
I like my X-10 too and look forward to getting the new sensor.
arndsan: I think everyone who is serious about photography already noticed that there is better performance in smaller package already out.my coolpix 8400 from 2004 got a sensor from 8.8x6.6 and a good electronic viewfinder and a better lens.Why Nikon can make it half a s good as Sony today.Yes I waiting for the D800
Not everyone wants to carry a Minox. ;-)
ThomasH_always: I am disappointed by the comment of the reviewer about the Optical Viewfinder "a slightly anachronistic touch on a modern compact camera".
I wish Dpreview would have more photographers and less "tech geeks" dominating their commentaries.
Optical Viewfinder (OVF) as of this date is dramatically superior to any existing Electronic Viewfinder (EVF), only the newest Sony OLED viewfinders which I even haven not seen yet personally, seem to getting close to optical viewfinder.
I would not ever buy a camera of any size without a viewfinder, and all the even so expensive add-ons from Leica or Olympus were just so poor compared to even bottom-of-the-line optical viewfinder. Why?
1) The energy of the light passing optical viewfinder is always proportional to ambient light, thus to the light to which your eye is attuned to.
2) Light change is instantaneous, EVF need some adaptation time.
3) Battery use is... Zero!
Of course, the era of EVF might be coming, but is not yet there.
An OVF, for me, is required.