jm7587: I wonder what the flange to sensor distance is.
Would the new T lenses be adaptable to another system… micro 4/3 for example? Of course the focus could be an issue.
The optical correction of the 18-56 is very intriguing.
The lenses are fully electronic, so even if you could mount them (which I doubt), you wouldn't be able to focus or set the aperture.
JohnNewman: Why can't even professional writers learn the difference between 'discrete' and 'discreet'? Nice review, very useful but spoilt at the end by poor literacy.
As far as the Fuji system is concerned, it's the lenses that are the stars. If only Nikon would match them for APS-C they'd be on a winner but seem to only be interested in trying to make folk upgrade to FF. As long as they pursue this course, Fuji and Sony will continue to grow and make a killing (I ignore MFT as quality and sensor wise they cannot compete - but ok when less than best quality is sufficient).
As it happens, the shutter sound is both discreet and discrete. Personally I'd also argue that there's a distinct difference between letting a typo slip into a 20 page review, and any sensible definition of the word 'literacy'. But thanks for pointing it out anyway.
steelhead3: Too bad it was tested on a low resolution camera.
@WesternSage - lens tests take measurements right across the frame into the corners, which exaggerates any effect of tilt. In contrast, resolution charts for cameras only take measurements close to the centre of the frame where the errors are smallest.
MadManAce: What I find interesting is that every test chart (so far) says this lens is amazingly sharp wide open, but I have yet to see one sample photo that supports the test results. Either there are focus issues or it is true that tests mean very little.
I'd contend that our samples show that the lens is just as sharp wide open as the measurements suggest. But they also show that you have all the usual focus problems with a fast prime on a full frame SLR - depth of field is very thin, so the slightest relative movement between photographer and subject will throw things out. Of course phase detect AF isn't always going to be accurate enough to get the best out of the lens, either.
joao 43: How does it compare to Zeiss 55mm FE? Since Sony users can use this lens it would be useful to know. The 55mm was according to DXO the best 50mm after the Otus, what's you opinion Andy Westlake?
[Here's the comparison data](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sigma_50_1p4_a&cameraId=canon_eos5dmkiii&version=0&fl=50&av=1.4&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=sony_zeiss_fe_55_1p8_za&cameraId2=sony_a7r&version2=0&fl2=55&av2=1.8). Note though that the Zeiss 55mm was tested on a higher-resolution camera, so MTF data isn't directly comparable. I'd judge the two lenses to be equally good optically, but the Sony FE lens will obviously be much more practical on the Alpha 7 triplets.
@ steelhead3: No. Roger Cicala has shown that lens adapters introduce sufficient tilt for lens test results to be unacceptably flawed. [Here's the story](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/30/roger-cicala-investigates-accuracy-of-lens-adapters).
Unfortunately, there's no higher-resolution camera it could have been properly tested on.
Horshack: The gallery timestamp shows April 17th, 2012
Typo corrected, apologies for that
BelePhotography: pictures - found here http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n140416.html
Sorry, this type of image gallery doesn't yet display on mobile. But we're working on it.
MV Atlanta: I am trying to decide between the E-M1 and X-T1 with a focusing speed (both outdoor and low light) being a priority. It is frustrating to repeatedly read "focus improved over X-E1" or "fastest focusing Fuji so far" - This is virtually useless information for comparing the two cameras. Both I and Usain Bolt are faster than a sloth but saying that "I am faster than a sloth" does not inform anybody how I compare to Usain. This is beyond obvious I have seen a virtually similar language in other professional review sites and no discussion on how it compares to E-M1 focusing speeds in REAL LIFE settings.
The only logical explanation is that the manufacturers sensor some observations in exchange of providing free samples, early access, etc. Nothing negative about the DPR staff, the site is great; this is just a reality of life.
In REAL LIFE settings there are lots of variables, and any comparison with the E-M1 will depend substantially on the lenses you choose to use. Overall the E-M1 is probably a touch quicker, but with the faster-focusing Fujifilm lenses the difference isn't huge (and the X-T1 counts as 'fast enough' in practical terms). If you use slower-focusing lenses like the 35mm F1.4 or especially the 60mm F2.5 Macro, the X-T1 will obviously lag behind - unless of course you put a slower-focusing lens like the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 on the E-M1.
For the record, manufacturers don't censor or place any conditions on anything we write in reviews.
Arteefartee: I suppose it is too much to hope that an extended eyecup will be made available for the X-Pro or that this one for the X-T1 might fit?
This one definitely won't fit the X-Pro1
I've now added high resolution images of everything except the cover kit (as that one's quite dull).
Peter62: Buy the X-A1, get the same image quality.
Buy the X-A1, get different image quality, because it uses a conventional Bayer sensor. The X-M1 will give essentially the same image quality, but in very different body style.
vadims: Why there is no ISO range on the specs page (2)?
I even searched for "iso" on the page; the only place where it's mentioned is flash guide number (i.e. that it's for ISO100).
Sorry, that was a quirk of our specs database. It should be visible now.
LightBug: What F-stop was the continuous auto-focus tracking test done under?
They were shot in shutter priority at 1/500sec and ISO 200, using the 55-200mm zoom at 55mm. This resulted in an aperture of F5.6.
Early in the sequence, the camera doesn't have to refocus very much between shots, if at all, But if you look at the later frames in the sequence, you can see pretty easily how the camera is refocusing between shots, even in the very reduced size of the rollover. Look at how the background becomes progressively more blurred as the camera focuses the lens closer.
MrChristopher: Could someone elaborate on the inability to use a flash remotely (wireless) as claimed in this review? My x100 can fire a Fuji or YN-560II flash in "commander" mode, does the XE-2 not have this ability?
The X-T1 behaves in exactly the same way, because Fujifilm simply doesn't have a wireless TTL flash system.
CCDC: On their site, I see nothing about fuji fits, or do you have other sources?
It's in the press release above: "The Nissin i40 is available now in Nikon and Canon fit, with new style Sony, Four Thirds and Fujifilm fits coming soon."
steelhead3: Was this a problem mentioned in the DP review?
@Timur: you should always keep on spending more money on equipment. It's the most basic of rules.
lighthunter80: This should be possible for the E-P5 as well? If so it could silence all the Pen critics and would pretty much make the Pen a Gold Award winning camera :)
I wondering why this FW update comes for the EM1 and not the Pen. I cannot imagine that the Pen doesn't have the same capabilities in terms of FW upgrades.
Implementation of an electronic first curtain is wholly dependent on the sensor's ability to support it. The E-M1 has a different sensor than the E-P5.
We didn't consider 'shutter shock' to be a significant problem with the E-M1 - any blurring you get with it is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things (and a lot less than we saw from the E-P5). However some users consider any blurring at all to be completely unacceptable, particularly given the E-M1's price.