CameraLabTester: EXR HR
For every newfangled camera churned out from these manufacturers, they invent a few newfangled acronyms of the most sordid kind.
This camera is a BOAR. (as all other P&S and DSLRs)
Becomes Obsolete At Retail.
Err, those terms have been used with Fuji EXR cameras for the last 5+ years, hardly newfangled.
cgarrard: Good specs and good price (surprised actually). Now how fast is the AF motor (and how quiet)?
The SAM lenses are generally pretty fast, but they aren't very quiet.
onlooker: Again? When was it awesome first time? Absolutely horrid interface, busy, loud, it's good for anything BUT viewing photographs.
I find Pbase kind ugly and awkward to be honest.
ryansholl: These posts make me wonder how I ever got a good picture, much less thousands, from the numerous point and shoots I've used over the years that didn't have a grip.
I must be a photographic genius. Had I only had an expensive grip taped onto the camera, I'd no doubt be pro by now.
a) It's not expensive. b) It will make you take better shots if you (or someone you hand it to) would have dropped the camera and it didn't work any more.
I still very much like Flickr. It's simple, robust, and dependable. Their resize engine is top notch, the community is large and active, and while it's not as showy as some of the others, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
I think almost everyone has this bassackwards. This is not an issue of camera video vs smartphone video. It is not an issue of video at all. It's an issue of sound, and in particular loud concert sound, and the issue of that sound blowing out. I have some wonderful videos of concerts that I've been to that have only one issue - the sound is blown out and distorted. Yes, you can add external level-limited mics to most dSLRs, but given it can be achieved at a low cost of manufacter, I don't see any technical or budgetary reason why they don't already include mics that can handle higher db like this phone and the newer iPhones (for example) seem to be able to "and its inbuilt stereo microphone can handle audio up to 140db".
The only reason I can think of is to not cannibalise their pro lines and audio accessories, and hopefully more smartphones having this capability will force them to include it in more cameras too.
Anyone know if the EX2 has compressed RAW?
jameshamm: I have thought about something similar. If you look at the human eye, it accomplishes an incredible feat with a single lens, and lots and lots of specialized receptors. I was wondering why no camera manufacturer has looked into the possibility of a curved sensor with a simple lens, since most of the work the lens has to do in our current technology is spherical to plane mapping without aberrations. This camera here is along the same lines even if it's not really applicable to artistic photography. What would make more sense is a miniaturization of this concept into a simple lens projecting on a curved sensor (or multiple sensors, or multi-layered sensors for detecting light and contrast).
Agreed, but I think the production of curved wafers for the sensors is problematic.
Fred Briggs: As a Panasonic owner I'm a bit disapponted that most of the samples are taken on the Olympus - maybe Panasonic are too! Also the choice of aperture seems to be rather inappropriate in quite a few of the samples. Are you DPR guys being deliberately perverse here?
Landscapes with massive depth of scene are not going to be that useful to assess edge to edge quality when shot at f/3.5, even allowing for the smaller sensor's greater depth of field. Similarly angled shots of buildings or vehicles at f/2.8 are only useful for assessing image quality at the focus point - the rest of the shot is un-informative blur when viewed at the size needed to assess lens performance.
Unless you are interested in the characteristics of the bokeh.
dstate1: To summarize nearly every post on Dpreview.com since commenting began:
"My favorite camera is the best one and everyone who thinks otherwise is a total idiot. "
Sorry, but you've missed the other half:
"This camera is the same brand as my favourite camera so it's better than your favourite brand of camera. My brand made the XYZ1 camera in 1978, so they know how to make great cameras."
Csaba Farkas: That Viso is cumbersome but DOES look like the old Visoflex mirror houses! Nice design touch. Other than that, I don't see any point in the X2.Fuji x100 is way more innovative and closer to the Leica spirit, it being something of a rangefinder.230K LCD is not a big deal on the M9, enough for a quick chimp check of focus, composition, histogram. But when it is THE interface to focus, compose and control – it really is an insult.As much as I love, use and pamper my Leica babies, this one is a laugh.The strong point of a non-rangefinder compact camera is ZOOOOOM! Versatility. You don't shoot Vanity Fair covers with it.My two cents for a usable Leica compact:- Tri-Elmar lens, f2.8 all the way or at worst f2.8-4; equiv. focal length 24-35-50mm or 28-50-90-Fast, accurate AF- Macro maybe not but close focus to 0.3m- Decent hybrid optical finder with three-step magnification, parallax bright lines + switchable live view (External finders suck!)- APS-C sensor- Very simple menu
"Tri-Elmar lens, f2.8 all the way or at worst f2.8-4; equiv. focal length 24-35-50mm". 100% agreed, that would be perfect.
ntsan: No one bothered by the fact it got 230K LCD screen? I thought it went extinct few years ago, that is a huge downgrade from previous 920K LCD
It depends on your usage of it. A 920K screen you can't see isn't as good as a 230K screen that you can.
zos xavius: I gotta admit it. Maybe a sony fanboy can clue me in. Why pick slt over dslr? Most of us want an ovf. I've used evfs and even when the refresh rate keeps up they feel slow. Also most evfs only give you what was shot during burst, making leading a moving target almost impossible. With a mirror it at least gives you a glimpse of the next frame. Then there is the 20% light loss. That's huge. Also there is the fact that fine details are lost at roughly 5-10%. This combined with an aa filter an bayer array doesn't really help image quality does it? Also does dust just collect on the mirror? At least my camera shakes dust from the sensor. I still have to clean every few months, but it helps a lot. I mean I change lenses all the time in outside conditions. Usually I have little choice. If there was just a mirror there it would be a mess. My mirror is a mess as it is and my focusing screen looks pretty awful, but my sensor is pretty clean. That says a lot. Mirror boxes get filthy. I saw shots with the mirror pulled and they were clearly sharper, and the article was written by a sony fan, so it doesn't seem like he wanted to fake it to smear sony. It just has so many drawbacks. The only thing it gains for all the compromises is phase detection. Surely you could implement phase detection a bit more gracefully. What gets me is that it still uses a mirror but has no ovf. That just seems kind of...well...odd.... Someone tell me what I'm missing. It seems like slt is the future for sony in the dslr space. I would much rather see them do more cameras like the a900. I'm no sony fan, I'm just trying to get why they would bet so much on a design that offers few advantages over a traditional dslr. Are they that convinced that evf is superior or that's what they think the market wants? I shoot pentax and the k-01 as odd as it is, makes more sense than slt. Isn't that funny? A k-01 with an evf would be superior to this except that it wouldn't have phase detection, but contrast detection is catching up fast. Look at the olympus om-d or the panny g3. They are just poor at panning with moving objects. To me that's a software problem. Cdaf will certainly pass pdaf by in the long run. So if you ask me in 5 years this whole system will seem kind of pointless. Am I wrong? I'm not trolling or anything. I've read a lot about slt to try to understand why anyone would find it superior. Maybe I'm just too much of a traditionalist. I like innovation, but only when it comes with real benefits.
Plus, the viewfinder size is significantly larger in the SLT range vs those in comparable budget cameras.
No moving mirror means no mirror-slap, so details will likely end up similar at slower shutter speeds. Less shutter lag. Quieter. Your approximations for light and details lost are kind of high. Quality constant autofocus and tracking in video. The mirror on the SLT doesn't get as dirty as a traditional mirrorbox, as it doesn't move. Inbody stabilization works really well too, just as on Pentax bodies. I'm not saying you are totally wrong, but I find it to be a good compromise, and I'm happy with my output from my SLT. I think it will move a step forward in years to come, once the obsession with having an AA filter is gone, or Sony implement their organic-based sensor tech. Maybe the K-01 makes sense to you because you have a bunch of Pentax lenses?
If you think the viewfinderless K-01 makes more sense than any camera, there's not really much to say.
RichardAB: It's concerning that in dpreview's "Buyer's Guide: Enthusiast raw-shooting compact cameras" of December 15, 2011 in the recommendations section it singled out the Fujifilm X10 for its 'image quality'.
I know the Nikon P7100 well, having used it for 7 months so left comments about mistakes in their review of that camera.
I feel particular sympathy for anyone who purchased an X10 on the basis of dpreview's image quality recommendation, having put their trust in dpreview, and wonder if dpreview feels any responsibility?
"Reading what you have quoted must lead anyone to question why it was your pick - exactly my point."
Err, because taking into account all the other image quality factors he thought it had better IQ? It's not rocket surgery.
vahitism: I have 3 things to say.1. I have been visiting (not contributing) dpreview forums and reviews for years and always have been irritated by those who turn arguments to personal discussions. I can't ask for this to stop, but wouldn't hurt me to hope everyone get along since we all share the same passion.2.I own(ed) from large format to p&s all types of cameras and never loved a camera brand so much to be supporting them all the way. All companies have flaws mistakes. Fuji Japan made a mistake by answering to orb problem as it isn't, IS a mistake, in my opinion. 3. I own a Fuji x10. I am not bothered by the white orbs, but definitely will do a sensor swap if Fuji may do it in the future. A dead pixel would bother me as much. I expected the x10 to show a flaw. No one should settle with a mis-advertised product. x10 may be cheaper or more expensive than competitors. What matters to me is not the price I paid, but is the advertisement. x10 does everything else perfectly in most conditions.
"I have been visiting (not contributing) dpreview forums and reviews for years and always have been irritated by those who turn arguments to personal discussions."
Pfft, how typical of *you* to say that. :-P
iflash: Gone off Fuji lately - white orbs, crappy AF, shutter chatter.... and so on. When they put out a bug free, realistically priced camera, I'll take them a lot more seriously. After all this is what they purport to do for a living. The X10, X100 and x Pro 1 are all beset by problems that should have been debugged in-house before release. Most of the Fuji postings on DP are about issues that should never have existed. So, Mr Fuji, I have looked, liked a lot of what I saw, but I'm off to spend my $2,000 on a Nikon kit.
Come on now, have some perspective. It's not "didn't move", it's more like "sometimes the indicator went on by itself" or "the radio went on and off".
meanwhile: The field blur can be done far better, and easier, with other existing tools (just got a much better/natural result with brushing the blur in Aperture in a few minutes with that image for example, and I'm sure Lightroom would be similar). I think even Ps layers/masks and the existing blur tools would give easier and better results.
(Of course it's better to have a fast lens, that's a given, and not really worth mentioning ...)
The field blur can be done far better, and easier, with other existing tools (just got a much better/natural result with brushing the blur in Aperture in a few minutes with that image for example, and I'm sure Lightroom would be similar). I think even Ps layers/masks and the existing blur tools would give easier and better results.