knowneuropean: I'm not sure it's been pointed out before (I only took a quick peek to check), but I think the lens referred to as a 15-450mm is actually a 150-400mm ;-)
I've correct that. Thanks for highlighting it.
jvt: This is a somewhat poor review. The reviewer basically used this camera like a point & shoot...I guess that's what all cameras are...but this camera offers so much more after you learn how to use it.
And while the high ISO sample shots look superb, it would have been nice to include more than 1 shot taken at the basic 200 iso.
That said, I agree with the "silver" award. A digital camera these days, for that price, should have a better than average video function...certainly not a poor one.
jvt: that's a big conclusion to draw from seven images.
I can assure you that I've shot with the X100T (and S) extensively, as well as the many months I spent when we reviewed the original X100.
bumblebeezack: It's great that DPR took the time to write a review for the X100T, although I felt that somehow, the reviewer isn't exactly sure what to make of the camera. It was mentioned that the camera is great tool for documenting life and in a way that's true with it's relatively fast lens and large sensor in a small form factor. So much so that many felt this was a great camera for "street". However I feel that the camera is so much more. I had it for a few months and used it for almost any kind of shooting, I can.
Have a look here https://flic.kr/s/aHsk6DDj2k
It's by no means the best example, of course, but seriously, I have a D810 that I use mainly for work as comparison and this camera blows me away quality-wise if one takes a more deliberate approach to taking a photo.
Don't miss an opportunity to own a great "point and shoot". Try the camera first, if you can. It's pretty amazing and can be so much more, I'm sure, in worthier hands then mine!
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways (in which case I'll see if there's a good way to re-phrase my shooting experience).
I see the X100 series as cameras that let you get what used to be DSLR-only image quality wherever and whenever. It's the serious camera you actually have with you.
I'd be fascinated to know what makes you draw this conclusion.
I think there's a risk that you're misunderstanding me and I'm misunderstanding you.
By documenting my life, I mean shooting everything I do and everything that goes on around me. I'm not clear how this differs from what you're suggesting.
Dougbm_2: 81% and only Silver seems pretty mean. Should the score and award have some sync? eg Gold over 80% Silver over 70%
If they were directly linked, then the award wouldn't tell you anything: it'd just be the score repeated with less precision.
The award is the reviewer's overall perspective, based on the factors spelled out in the conclusion. Logically it ties very closely to the score (it's hard to imagine a camera scoring in the low 70s getting a gold and anything scoring in the high 80s would have to be physically painful to use to stop it getting a Gold if its images gained it such a high grade).
chillgreg: Ren Kockwell called the X100T the best camera in the world. Which gives even more credence to the DPR Silver award. Well done Richard!
Sadly I can only give you one 'Like.'
vadims: Very nice review *size*, DPR.
I have to say this tells me all I really need to know. All those charts with minute differences in dynamic range and such? Not my cup of tea.
DPR, IMHO, has developed a bit of schizophrenic nature over time (please understand I'm not using "schizophrenic" pejoratively here): on one hand, you produce so overwhelmingly detailed reviews these days that I wonder if there are any people reading all of them; on the other hand, you post more and more completely non-technical stuff.
Real issue with both is that it means lesser number of tech reviews; and, which is much worse, by the time a review do appear, it is irrelevant.
So, again, thanks for the sane approach you've taken with x100t (even though I do understand it was caused by the the fact the camera is a relatively minor upgrade more than by anything else...)
That's what we're aiming for, yes.
captura: Maybe the X100S and T should compared to their APS-C rivals, the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix 'A.'
We're trying to strike a middle ground between the two states. Focus on the photographically relevant while also covering the technical.
Ah, I took is as a response to 'The Fuji jpegs are better,' implying the Nikon's were better even than that.
It's not an argument I expected anyone to make, but I'll confess I've been somewhat blind-sided by demands for flip-out screens and IS, which would be a long was down the list for me, underneath faster AF and a newer (perhaps Bayer) sensor.
palinode: I'm so glad to see a review of the X100T! I've been shooting with one for about five months now and it's an excellent and surprisingly versatile camera, and a real improvement over the X100S.
One thing to note: I'm confused about the bug involving digital split MF assist hijacking AF. I tried to reproduce that problem on my camera but couldn't. Which I suppose is a good thing?
We've gone out and grabbed a production example of the X100T (which we believed ours was). That problem has indeed been fixed and has been removed from the commentary.
captura: you may find opinions differ on your last point.
We're in discussion with Fujifilm at the moment. The camera we believed to be production-spec appears to behave differently to the ones people are buying.
If they've fixed this glitch I'd be delighted to amend the review.
ThePhilips: Con:"16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"
And here I thought that DPR was over the MP race.
The latest 24MP sensor from Sony is almost identical to the performance of their 16MP at pixel level (which means its better at a whole-image level). At which point, why wouldn't you want more detail, given how cheap and available storage is becoming?
zink: Thanks for the review. I enjoyed it.But 16MP is beginning to look low by contemporary standards is one of your cons. I think you should applaud Fuji for not joining the MP race.
If you look at the performance of Sony's 24MP APS-C sensor compared to their older 16MP sensor you'll see it's similar in most respects at pixel level, which means it's better (less noisy/more detailed) when you print or view at a common size.
At which point, I'm not going to applaud anyone for *not* using the better sensor.
Cipher: Is it me or is the X100T a smidge sharper than the X100S? Could this be that maybe a different version of software (e.g. Lightroom) was used to process the X100T files than the X100S?
They were processed using the same version of Adobe Camera Raw (we shot the X100S specifically so that it could be included in this review).
There's a change it's sample variation between the two cameras or a difference in focus beyond the degree to which we can control it. Comparing the images side-by-side, I'd conclude that any differences are within the realms of experimental error.
Yes and no. In scoring terms they are. But everyone I know who shoots with a GR (or GRD) would never contemplate buying a 35mm equiv camera, while nobody I know with an X100 series considered a 28mm equiv. camera.
Although the principle: large sensor, small(ish) camera with prime lens is similar, the practicalities of the two are rather different.
I specifically called-out the GR as a (for many people) better option than the X100+wide-angle converter, but without accessories, I'd argue each camera is a poor substitute for the other.
mgatov: How is this better than the older Sony RX-1?
Captura - absolutely. I gave the RX1 a Gold award for precisely that reason. Its lens and image quality are better than the X100T's, but the question I answered was 'how is this better than the older Sony RX-1?'
MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.X100T 81% Silver Award?????
The guidelines may not be clear to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's [an introduction to the scoring system](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained), which should provide some insight.
The scores are based on a 30-point, analysis against each camera's immediate peers, with multiple reviewers having input to try to maximise consistency. It's not perfect, but we don't simply pick a number to stick at the end.
We do, after extensive use of the camera and its peers, pick an award (and explain the logic behind that decision, so that individual readers can decide whether they agree).
A scoring system will always be a much more blunt instrument than the full conclusion which, in turn, is less nuanced than the full review, but we do our best to make it meaningful and consistent.