Godfrey: What a great review. Give a subtle, sophiscated camera to two people totally unfamiliar with it for a day—or a week—and then print two negative reviews.
The X is not a perfect camera, but it is a fine camera nonetheless. I wouldn't try to shoot with it like I shoot with a Leica M9, or an Olympus E-M1, or a Nikon D4s: I would be disappointed. In my hands, it is a far far nicer camera to use than any Fuji I've tried (basically all of them). And no one has questioned for one moment the quality of the 11x17 and larger prints I've shown made with it.
It takes time to learn and use a camera. You don't just transfer skills from a completely different camera in an instant. I'd say it took me a couple of weeks and a couple thousand careful shots to grok the X. And I couldn't be happier for doing so. It was worth every penny of what I paid for it, much more so than several other popular cameras I've tried.
Well, I don't miss my 5DII at all. I'm very happy with Xt1, and found the majority of reviews consistent and accurate in terms of the camera's pros and cons. Enjoy!
Seemed like a very fair review by a well qualified reviewer. I don't see how more experience with the camera would really make a difference regarding most of his negative comments. Besides, most reviewers don't get to live with a camera for extended periods of time. A day or a week is reasonable. I'm curious, how long did you keep "basically all" of the Fuji cameras before you determined they weren't good enough for you?
D200_4me: I really like some of these. Very nice. But me personally, I've never been too keen on the competitions. I just never got a good feeling or impression of photography competitions and (usually, but not always) the type of people that gravitate towards this type of recognition. I do enjoy sharing photos I'm happy with online because it's nice to get some feedback and some "I like that" comments now and then. Who wouldn't enjoy that? :-) A simple acknowledgement that your practice and effort paid off, in the form of a nice photo. I also tend to avoid social media sharing of photos and Google Plus has gotten really bad about 'attention wh@res'. Everyone's a new Nat Geo photographer on there and nearly everyone's in a competition for 'likes' and reshares. I'm content these days to avoid all that and pay my $150 per year to smugmug to show my photos and with no comments enabled. The stats on my galleries (number of views) is enough pat on the back for me to know I'm doing ok.
It's important to choose competitions wisely. Well respected competitions (e.g., Communication Arts, NY Center for Photography, Critical Mass, PDN) are both prestigious to win, and offer exposure to industry gate keepers. Whether you think it should be the case or not, winning certain competitions give your career credibility and are important for building a resume. There's no doubt I've sold more prints because I've done well in certain key photographic competitions. But, increasingly, the "key" competitions are getting more expensive, and harder to find.
NeilSDPR: It' would seem like the bean counters are at it again, one such set took over a local brewery only to complain about the malt bill, my response to the friend who worked there was that they would soon be moaning about the water rate as well
Change bringing about possible short term gain, with unknown future quality and viability concerns being ignored, is not an uncommon tried and tested, but more often than not failed managerial stratergy
Well, I guess you win the Internet. Too smart for me. I'll get back to my bean counting and $12M company. I'll let you know when I change the world.
"My way of thinking." Yes, as a person who runs a business with 40+ employees, my way of thinking includes keeping the business running. For every example you cite of a visionary or company that innovated without regard to "bean counting" I will cite you 10 businesses that had good ideas but failed because they failed to make sound business decisions and thought that "bean counting" didn't matter. SI is an example of a company that made the right decision from a business standpoint. SI is not a non-profit, gov't run organization. They also don't have the resources of Google (your lame example). So, why don't you once again explain how "my way of thinking" is wrong.
Ah, yes. Those pesky "bean counters." Wouldn't it be nice if businesses could operate without worrying about silly things like profit, efficiency, etc.? Without bean counters, you could pay everyone a super high salary and not worry about expenses at all. Stupid bean counters.
samhain: I just can't take any full frame system that doesn't have a 50/1.4 seriously. That should've been the FIRST lens they released. 85/2 or 90/2 should've been 2nd.
7 new lenses later and still no dedicated portrait lens, with the only 'fast' lens being a wide angle?
The only lens in that entire lineup that's even halfway appealing is the 35/1.4, and that's a focal length that I've never felt the need to have a lens faster than f2.
I just don't get Sony cameras. Every new product, I'm left feeling the same way: Close, but no cigar. One of these days they'll nail it.
Um, I'm pretty sure the significant difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is NOT skill. Good grief.
Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.
I will agree that they are not the best I've seen. But, did you see the entries? Does this contest require a fee? Yes, you do make a valid point - I probably would not stop and look at some of these photos. But, I still don't like that you and other call them "horrible." It just seems like every time there's actual photography featured on this site, there's a ton of comments about how "poor" or "horrible" the images are, etc.
Colin, I do understand your point of view. You disagree with the judges, I get it. I just think it's arrogant to call the work of others "horrible." I like the photo with the crooked horizon. I like most of the shots that won.
Colin, I read it. And, I disagree. Calling another image "horrible" requires some credibility (besides being disrespectful and ignorant). What you consider "jaw-dropping," credible judges probably consider rote. A "great" image is defined by much more than if it has "crooked horizons."
I'm often perplexed by clearly amateur photographers who feel it's okay to call winning images from a well respected contest (with very qualified judges) "horrible" without any reasoning. That's especially true when the criticism is coming from someone who specializes in generic bird photos, sunsets, and other cliche images. Do I love everyone of the winning images? No. Do I understand why they won? Yes.
spencerda: Hi all,
Enjoyed the video. Bit of a puff piece. Would any pro really use instead of a full frame for their own paid work? Is the Fuji any better or worst than say the Oly 10 or what ever is the competing model? Anyway I did enjoy.
Own the XT-1, do mostly travel and landscape work, still trying to get the best from the camera. Great Jpegs best I have seen. Canon Jpegs suck big time.Still need to find a good Raw converter, any advise is appreciated. As a long time Canon user always shot and worked with Raw.
I'm a professional. I use Fuji. It replaced an entire 5DII kit.
arvivaz: To the Apple Haters and the Shamsuckers, so sorry but it's a given. Just as the iPhone became the template for smartphones, and the iPad became the same for the tablet, the Apple Watch will most likely end up being the product template for the rest of the smartwatch industry to copy. The look and feel, the level of integration, the ability to do so many things, etc. will influence their product design and content. And Shamsung, which in the past couple years have been trying their darndest to predict the next big thing and as usual lose its pants due to a crisis of vision, will have found inspiration in the Apple Watch. And, like with a bad habit, develop a timepiece that's practically a clone of Apple's product. They are probably hours into the meeting right now measuring screen captures of Apple's new toy.
@Thatcannonguy - do you have a point? Are you saying somehow that all watches are the same because they all give you the same time? Good grief.
@Sonyalphashooter - yes, I watched the video. How old are you? Do you have a job in the business world? It's already annoying enough when people can't even hold a conversation with you without looking at their phone every 2 minutes...so, now we are all going to be sitting in meeting looking at our watches every few seconds??! Great.
Of course, "give me an Oris, Rolex, Omega, etc." is my own opinion. But, really, the extreme minority?? I think "regular" watches currently outsell smart watches by a wide margin. But, we'll see.
Does anyone really want one of these smart watches? I have multiple iPhones and iPads, laptops, cameras, and I wear a Jawbone UP. These smart watches are redundant feature wise. And, nothing beats a high end, classy timepiece. Give me an Oris, vintage Rolex, Omega, etc. I'd be embarrassed to walk into a room if everyone had the same watch. What's next, the iShoe?
More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.
Dylthedog: Interesting selection - the perception of photos is definitely changing. I'm struggling with #7 as the winner for landscapes though.
Do you mean to say the single image #7 isn't interesting, or do you not find all 12 of his images in the portfolio interesting, along with the context of "examining the relations between the natural world and the man-made in a land that has been so dramatically changed over the course of history"?
Jeff Seltzer: Unfortunately, as usual, too many of the below comments and replies got personal. Let's talk about photography, instead. So, for all you folks that are calling the images "crap" and "ordinary" or "nothing special." Let's understand why? Remember, these images are from a series. The judges were not evaluating them individually, but rather as a project - so it seems fair you should evaluate them in the same way. That said, let's take a look at the "Photographer of the Year" Sara Naomi Lewkowicz. What about her project is "crap" for you? Why do you feel she didn't deserve the top honor for her project on domestic violence?
Thanks for proving my point.
mcshan: Whenever DPR posts a story about photos winning awards it is always the same handful out here that wrap their arms around the results and lecture others on how to define art. Art is very subjective. Award winning? Milli Vanilli won a Grammy as best new artist in part for their singing.
If the "award" in this story was titled "best Photo by a Soccer Mom" would the photos be heralded in the same way? I am not so sure.
It is nice that Sony gives out awards but in the end it really doesn't mean much.
jkoh2 - not sure what your point is?? Can you clarify?