Class A: The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).
Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.
The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).
So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?
Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?
BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.
@waxwine - when you say 'Not "convenient" to apply the bicycle guy AF test on Fujis' how does that relate to the AF test on page 10, which was shot alongside the K-3?
Edymagno: Andy, what about the Nikon D800e? Couldn't borrow one? Just asking.The 5DIII is a mid res camera these days. Or about to be.
Sigma tends to produce lenses in Canon mount first, with Nikon following a few months later. As such, there are only Canon versions available, at present (so far as we know).
Elaka Farmor: How can RX100 (with its much smaller sensor and more megapixels) have better dynamic range and color depth, and a two years old olympus with a smaller sensor (E-PM2) have much better low light ISO??http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-PowerShot-G1-X-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PM2___941_896_840
@kadardr - DxO does not test or show whether ISOs are over- or under-rated - just how the ISO marked on the camera relates to the normalized reference point that they use for their tests.
Coincidentally, the RX100 II is around 1/3rd EV under-sensitive, but that's not what DxO is showing.
Graham Meale: Typo: "optical 'custom grip'" presumably should be "optional 'custom grip'"
munro harrap: In the UK its list price is £800 roughly. For £880 you get the Sony RX10. You get , similar sensor size, 24-200mm f2.8 Zeiss zoom.
But right now for £730 with £100 casnback from Nikon you get the Nikon D7100 body. Hmmmm 24MP APS-C. For about £100 you can pick up an 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor (AFS metal mount.)
That's a 105mm f4.5 lens on an APS-C sensor, which means folks, as good a zoom as 200mm f2.8 on a crummy little digicam sensor (both a very noisy at base ISO- check out imaging-resources tests and compare)
The RX10 is infinitely superior to the Canon and does good video. But neither competes with APS-C. Noise degrades these smaller sensors images-however good, the noise is greater than the detail- so all textures, skin, wood, cloth, metal, LOOK THE SAME. Only the graphic and your brain says otherwise.
The Nikon shutter lag is easily good enough.
But a 300D 6MP Canon will give better pictures than this. Cost now with a lens? Less than £100.
[Here's a comparison that includes both the RX10 and G1 X Mark II](http://www.dpreview.com/files/articles/6489685206/EnthusiastAperture0314.png), in terms of lens range and '*equivalent*' aperture (that takes the 2x sensor size difference between the two into account).
The RX10 is also a lot larger than the G1 X II. The D7100 is larger still, and including a second-hand 18-70mm only makes it bigger and gives you a 27-105mm, F5.25-6.75 equivalent lens.
There are some people for whom an APS-C DSLR makes sense, but it's not a blanket truth that it will be *better* than this. 'The best camera is the one you have with you' and all that.
Donnie G: Alright, who's the comedian who came up with the term "mirrorless" cameras? Who the heck walks into a Costco, Walmart or Best Buy and says "Hey, can I buy a mirrorless camera? Or, Hey, can I buy a stepless ladder?" Sounds like something important has been left out of the product, doesn't it? I mean I understand what those folks are trying to say: "Mirrors! We don't need no stinking mirrors." I get it. But they need to come up with a new product description or catch phrase to help sell these cameras they claim to love so much. And please no, don't use E.V.I.L. either, unless you want to continue to have warehouses full of "marketless, SLRless" cameras for sale. :)
We conducted a poll several years ago, shortly after the Panasonic G1 was launched and Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera was by far the winner.
I think everyone acknowledges that it's imperfect (not least because it defines a camera by what it isn't), but no one then or since has presented a strong case for an alternative.
Some places use 'Compact System Camera' but I'm not sure that 'system camera' has that much market resonance, and many modern mirrorless camera's aren't that compact.
Unless you are going to make a suggestion what they should be called instead, could you please stop making this same comment on multiple stories?
Shield3: I'll hang onto my Panasonic LX-7 for now. It was under $250 ("used" warehouse Amazon (was BNIB), has a slightly smaller sensor (1/1.7") but a brighter lens (F/1.4 @ 24mm) and shoots 1080p @ 60FPS and 720p @ 120FPS.Why Canon chose to leave off at least 1080p60 on a $800 camera is mind-boggling.
@Trensamiro - just to be clear, the G1 X II never uses all 18.7 x 14mm of its sensor. The largest area is can use is nearer 17.9 x 13.4mm (240mm^2). But yes, still much larger - much more than can be compensated for by the Panasonic's brighter lens.
Jay Williams: I can't believe dpreview has stooped to the level of using the word "selfie." What is this world coming to?
I think Jeff was trying to specify the kind of self-portrait, taken at arms length, for vanity/social network purposes, for which the term 'selfie' is more concise.
DPNick: "order of magnitude"LOL!
Annoyingly, in checking this detail, I found a source that suggested that moving up into the next order of magnitude, i.e. $2.9x10^**4**, rather than $8.5x10^**3** was an acceptable use of this phrase (since it is *in* a greater order of magnitude).
However, it seems my existing understanding: of needing to be a *whole* order of magnitude greater was correct. We've corrected it (and feel suitably embarrassed).
chillgreg: Great review, really enjoyed that, thanks!
However I am struggling to understand how, in The Final Word, the Fuji is compared with 5 cameras, yet four out of five or 80% of these are not even in the same category, according to the Compare mode tool.
As the line between camera classes/categories become increasingly blurred, is this evidence that the Compare mode tool and it's categories are becoming redundant? In this instance comparing to the demonstrably out-of-date 7D and E30 is just silly. The Editor's own differing choice of cameras in the article summary just reinforces this.
Surely this discrepancy is something DPR would be wishing to address at some stage soon?
Trying to categorise anything becomes difficult near borders between those categories.
However, the alternative is that we have a scoring system that tries to directly compare a $150 compact to a Nikon D4S. It wouldn't make sense to award all compacts around, say, 20%, with high grades being reserved for pro-level DSLRs. At which point you need categories and borders between them.
Canon and Nikon both re-semented their markets, about a generation ago, with the D7000 and 60D both being a touch cheaper and simpler than the D300S/50D class of cameras. In hindsight, perhaps these should have stayed up in the Semi-Pro class, but that's not the decision we made at that time.
So, the reviewer is discussing the choices consumers might reasonably be making, even though it's hard to get the same flexibility in our scoring system.
Zvonimir Tosic: Wow, totally surprised: X-T1 review comes out in about 2 months. And with no long lashing and reminding needed because of the once made, but hardly to be fulfilled promise.It seems DPR can do anything if they really like it, and makes them enough dough.
@Zvonmir Tosic - Simon and I have explained several times now about the decisions about priorities that we *have* to make. We do this in an attempt to provide content that will be of interest to the greatest number of readers, given finite resources.
This is not the place to re-hash those discussions.
However, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a camera launched in a *relatively* quiet period (and that generated a lot of reader interest) can be reviewed sooner than a camera launched during the busiest couple of weeks of the year.
Francesco De Lorenzo: Having to build a new system, would you buy the Fuji or Sony A7? They cost the same.Thanks
I have to disagree that it's an easy choice. There are comparable or brighter lenses available for the X-T1, for most focal lengths, which can nullify the advantage of FF over APS-C, in some situations. Whether Sony's future lens releases will counter this isn't clear at this point.
Equally, I'd argue the X-T1's JPEGs are much nicer than the Sony's (which without finding out the priorities of the OP, might be relevant). So it's simplistic to say that one offers better IQ.
AF is much better (with most lenses) on the Fujifilm, as is the handling (notwithstanding the caveats given in this review). That said, the Sony's video is unquestionably better.
At which point, depending on the OP's needs and expectations, either could be the better answer.
That's not a question with an easy answer - both systems have their strengths. It depends a lot on what you want to shoot, which focal lengths you need and the relative importance to you of shooting experience vs. final output.
Neither is a bad choice, either could be the better choice for *your* needs. I don't believe there is a correct answer to the question, as asked.
Richard Murdey: "Disappointing JPEG color response"
A lot hinges on just *how* disappointing, but that seems to me like a pretty fundamental negative. If I'm paying $1000 for a dSLR it should produce pictures with pleasing color without too much fuss. If it can't that's quite a heavy burden to have to live with.
May I point out the section of page 12 where I specifically demonstrated the effect of difference JPEG settings?
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: DPR, please fix, in the last paragraph of page 12, the word "and" to an, in "... an essential feature".
Thank you DPR.
Thanks for spotting that. I've changed it.
GMaximus: Tone curves are good, but why don't DPReview guys measure DR in RAW?
We're working on a way of assessing it in a photographically meaningful way (that we can then demonstrate).
Dezzza: Who will take this camera to shoot with JPG? It'a not a smartphone.
Anyone wanting to use the FluCard to send their images off to a smartphone for sharing?
EdBov: It was 86% minus 3% because of us laughing about DPR.......:-)
A 83% score is unbelievable and they cannot mean this score to be "serious". The more I believe that Nikon, Olympus and Fuji are paying better than Ricoh (who do not pay for getting good or just even better reviews).
Even the Canon 7D (about 4 years older) has a score of 84%.
Goodbye DPR!. There was once a time I took you serious ................
Nobody or company pays for reviews on dpreview. No company has any input into the order in which we review cameras.
As it says above every scoring widget, the score is given at the time of review - it is safe to assume that the 7D would not get a score of 84% today.
Heie2: Also, for how long this review took, this might just be the slimmest and most empty review DPR has published in such a long time.
Gives off the impression of "FFS, just publish the damn thing already."
I really had high hopes DPR would finally get it right...
I didn't question your ability to judge my effort, nor suggest you didn't know how long these things can take.
I merely expressed my disappointment that you got the impression we'd just rushed the review, when I don't believe we did (despite the pressure to do so).
I'm not saying your impression is wrong (it's yours to form, after all), just that it's disappointing that the end result looks that way to you.
It may give that impression but, having spent several weeks working on nothing but this, It's profoundly disappointing that you'd see it that way.
Trying to test the AF correctly (shooting, changing settings, re-shooting, communicating with Ricoh, re-shooting, requesting other lenses, re-shooting...), isn't as straightforward as it might look.
Equally, making sure we understood what the AA filter mode does and doesn't do, and trying to find examples that demonstrate its effects took quite a lot of work. (As did developing the variation of our comparison tool to enable the differences to be shown side-by-side).
The lag before he had a chance to start the review was regrettable, but we did our best to test and assess the K-3 as thoroughly as possible. We probably could have thrown something together to stop the complaints, but instead we tried to give the K-3 the respect it deserved. It's disappointing that this effort isn't more apparent to you.