sorinx: So, you have to change all your lenses each 3-5 years when sensors become obsolete? It is like a fixed lens camera only 3x more expensive. RIP ricoh. nobody will buy it.
It would make much more sense if the system was weather and dust proofed. Then a sealed system has more validity.
SonyA77: how could A65 with less features and specs get a "GOLD AWARD" and A77 "Silver Award"? They have the same sensor and IQ! Please explain!
Maybe partly because the A65 is $999 and the A77 is $1800?
ybizzle: Fuji has forever rocked the foundation of compact cameras with the X10. You get m4/3 image quality from the 2/3" sensor plus low noise high ISO performance. There is just no competition for this camera right now. Glad I was lucky enough to buy one on release day.
$600 list price != $600.
The RAWs look great overall, but what the heck is going on with that playing card?
ScottieC: hmmm Olympus + Kodak might make a good merger... they maybe able to save each other...
Two wrongs don't make a right.
That shutter sounds extremely loud, does it have a silent mode?
That shutter is extremely loud, does it have a silent mode?
pixelpro: Bought one yesterday, returned it today.Some observations:
- shutter speed at f2 was not much faster than my E-PL1 kit at f3.5. Speed advantages appear on tighter shots.- VF eye cup is a thin rubber ring; hard not to contact the glass with your eyelid.- menus are poorly arranged.- battery gave out at 70 shots - incl. one flash, one short movie, and average zooming.- the speed dial around the 4-way at the back is difficult not to spin by mistake. When in ap or shutter priority, once set I couldn't "lock" the setting, so an accidental spin changes things.When zooming in and checking focus in playback, I'd always mistakenly spin that dial, go to another shot and not realize it.- to review shots, the lens HAS to be out, the cap can't be on. No filter threads, ergo no UV filter option.
- nice build and feel to the camera- nice IQ. A large step up from regular p/s cams, but just a small step down from m4/3. A slight over exposure on the interior shots, but can be adjusted.
>No filter threads, ergo no UV filter option.
There are threads (40.5mm), you just need the right step-up adapter
>- battery gave out at 70 shots - incl. one flash, one short movie, and average zooming.
Batteries do hold their charge better after multiple charges.
Goami: Guys, let's wait for an official results... If dpreview will decide to withdraw my photo, then no problems, i will not be dissatisfied... (although i'll be susprised, how the rules can be easily changed)... I think it will be better to stop unobjective flooding until that...
I'm confused. The above image is amazing, creative, great composition, a fine photograph. What's the problem?
rondhamalam: The fact that he attacked his former company, there's more than just dumping him away.
Go Olympus, go ! Never look back !
It's not his former company, it's his present company. He is still a director, and when speaking of Olympus he's still saying "we", which I think points to him not actually looking to destroy the company, but fix the issues it has. He has been with Olympus for 30 years, I don't think he's trying to ruin anything.
CameraLabTester: Olympus has got a very good 4/3 sensor who sniffed a raw deal, a hybrid shutter who can't keep the anomalies shut, an anti vibration and image stabilizer engine that's so good it's rocking the whole company, a pristine zoom lens that is like a magnifying glass on the accounts, and a great 100% viewfinder that has a permanent lens cap soldered on.
Auto-focus great.Sensor development stalled.Where is the money?
Rob Klein: I downloaded some of the images and did a bit of work in Photo Shop with them and they were vastly improved. I am a tad disappointed in the low light high ISO images and think that the G12 stuff out of the box looks a lot better and requires less fixing, however, we do not know what the settings were regarding sharpening, noise reduction, etc., in the samples shown from the Polish media briefing. There are, theoretically, many pluses with this camera and so only time will tell if it is a winner. Right now, I too, believe that the price is a bit high when compared to the G12 and I am interested to see what Canon will do now to answer both Fuji and Nikon. The Sony entry is interesting but too expensive and not exactly a pocket camera.
"the idiot that shot these samples"
I believe the idiot should be given the benefit of the doubt, and there were specific things they were trying to show, and have. Perhaps a little slower on the insult trigger?
marike6: It's nice to see that high ISO images like the cafe don't have the "watercolor" effect, heavy NR that some even high-end compacts have.
This one too for example. http://pliki.optyczne.pl/X10/fujX10_fot26.jpg
It's not amazingly sharp, but for an unsharpened ISO800 OOC JPEG? From a compact? There'll be lots of comparisons down the line, and it's just a gut feel, but I don't think my XZ-1 would be close to that quality at ISO800. Could be wrong though.
While there are a few of those LensTip samples that have me going "hmm", most are pretty damn good. I've downloaded the portraits for example and run them through my usual basic steps, (bit of a sharpen, an S-Curve, pump the colours slightly, some definition, etc) and for OOC JPEGs they are very nice. The RAWs should be stellar - if the shadows hold their detail.
keeponkeepingon: What is this super expensive small sensor camera day?
First the JVC now this.
$600? It'd be worth it if the IQ was amazing but Fuji's small sensor track record has been abysmal for the past few years and the initial X10 samples are simply not $600 amazing.
ISO 400 daytime:
More samples at lens tip dot com
"I mean it's an OK picture but not $600 OK and certainly does not wow me as a sample of the stellar performance of the "unique" Fuji sensor."
For what it is, and for what it shows the potential to be, I think it's more than OK. The detail that is there in an ISO400 JPEG (yes outside in daylight), with no sharpening, straight from the camera (stitching in her boots, textures, hair, etc). That to me points to the RAWs being stellar, if they've done it right.
If the highlights have some extra room for recovery, and the shadows retain decent detail, the results should be solid. At least on a par with XZ-1, LX5, etc.
keeponkeepingon: Sample images here:
Looks about what you could get with any cheap P&S.
"Looks about what you could get with any cheap P&S."
I love these blanket statements. They aren't perfect, but there's enough in territory that "cheap P&S" cameras can't touch to show that the final results from this camera will likely be more impressive than "cheap P&S". Clean ISO1600 JPEGs (with no sharpening and lowest noise reduction)? Detailed ISO800 indoor portraits (at least for JPEG with no sharpening and lowest noise reduction)?
This is the lowest level quality that this camera will produce, once you take it to RAW the results will be much improved. Plus, the JPEG settings will be tweak able to get *much* better results that shown here - which have the settings they have for good reason.
"I do not see how the shooter could do anything about that"
S90-95 overexposes outside, if you don't compensate, highlights are blown and shot is overexposed. XZ-1 overexposes outside, if you don't compensate, highlights are blown and shot is overexposed. etc. If the shooter does not correct, the shots will be subpar.
Shooter is shooting JPEG, with lowest level of sharpening and lowest level of noise reduction. Hence, softer images, and more noise. And they are JPEGs ... you want the best image quality, shoot RAW. Shooters choice again.
Shooter choosing high ISO to exhibit high ISO performance. Shooters choice again. You did notice that most of the shots are ISO400+, yes?
Colors are pale? Choose a vivid setting if you want "punchier" colors. Shooters choice again.
Caplin: I saw the photos of Fujfilmi X10, and i can say that i'm very dissapointet of the sharpness of the photos while looking at 100% size.
I don't think you've even looked at them if that is your conclusion.
24images: It seems a nice camera . Since I ve been so disappointed by my X100, I am suspicious. I don't believe this view finder will be better than the pathetic one on the G11. 85% coverage and no parallaxe correction, forget about it !
Were you using the X100 in Auto mode?