Previous news story    Next news story

First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web

By dpreview staff on Feb 1, 2012 at 00:34 GMT

Four full-size images from the Fujifilm X-Pro1 have been released by the two photographers commissioned to shoot with the camera (apparently using a pre-production unit). Australian photojournalist Michael Coyne and landscape photographer Christian Fletcher are shooting with the camera and have published four images taken with the 18mm lens, alongside a video explaining their first impressions. All the images, shot at a range of ISO settings, have been passed through Photoshop, according to the EXIF, but are said to be unprocessed. (via PetaPixel)

(Ignore all the talk of 'raw' images - they appear to mean not post-processed)

Following a request from Christian Fletcher, we've removed links to the images to prevent his server being overloaded.

© Christian FletcherISO 4001/200th, F5.6 © Christian FletcherISO 400 1/300th, F8
© Michael CoyneISO 10001/200th, F3.6 © Michael CoyneISO 64001/250th, F3.2

First Impressions video

Comments

Total comments: 216
123
Dogaruda
By Dogaruda (Feb 1, 2012)

theswede is right. Anyone who has been to Quorn South Australia knows it is not photogenic in overcast skies, especially in the dead of summer, which is what it is right now. The fact that Christian put out these images was to demonstrate the sharpness and tonal range of the camera, not what he was able to do post-processing (which is on his blog, btw).

As far as Michael Coyne's image of the shearing, I find it quite remarkable that the camera was able to attain the levels of detail it did in such a challenging environment. Shearing sheds are dark, hot , smelly places and incredibly difficult to get good images in.

4 upvotes
SigmaChrome
By SigmaChrome (Feb 1, 2012)

DPR please note: I also had a virus threat after clicking Christian's blog link. Probably better to remove this link until the threat is sorted.

3 upvotes
Koen Nhz
By Koen Nhz (Feb 1, 2012)

I got a virus (trojan) from the original link, do not click it!

(sorry for such a lame first post, but i just wat to warn everyone)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Feb 1, 2012)

Are these the first images? There have been plenty of full res X-pro1 samples on the Fuji website for some time already: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 1, 2012)

Link is not working anymore.

0 upvotes
Getanov
By Getanov (Feb 1, 2012)

The link is working.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Feb 1, 2012)

surprised by all the harsh comments here, the sheep shot is quite good and the perfect subject matter for this type of camera, reportage style shooting at high iso, the landscape, I have to agree to a certain extent, doesn't hold up to Mr. Fletcher's standards
I wish I had this camera alongside the A77 on my Africa trip
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=3288

2 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Feb 1, 2012)

This camera is actually of more interest to me than the Nikon D4.

I would be more likely to buy one of these than replace my D3s bodies with D4's for work as they are both fine and this lighter, smaller camera offers more of what I need to expand my arsenal than the D4 if it can get D3s IQ levels.

Something light, quiet and very portable without M9 pricing would be of great interest if it turns out good files.

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 1, 2012)

You will not get D3s or D3 IQ with this camera. Not even close.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Feb 1, 2012)

Define IQ. Amazing how everyine is willing to prejudge everything here based on zero hard facts. Clearly this camera has potential but without back to back comparisons who can say how it stacks up against another camera and in what way.

4 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Feb 1, 2012)

the X1 Pro have a better IQ as D3s or D3s :))

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Feb 1, 2012)

Yes, a lot of judging based on theory on this site. Long threads about how good/bad cameras yet to be even announced much less released will be!
I think it will be a very interesting camera; if it can deliver 85% of an M9 IQ at 30% of the cost, with AF that works in real life, then it warrants serious consideration for many uses where weight and size are important.

0 upvotes
ljclark
By ljclark (Feb 1, 2012)

Wow! So much mewling and puking from the pixel peepers and measurebators.

Actually, the two landscapes present a bit of a PP challenge that, I suspect, most of the whiners are not up to. Whether they are the "fault" of conditions or the camera, is a matter of opinion. I played around a bit with levels, curves, and sharpening late last night and tend to believe the camera is doing its job.

But to attenuate the whining a bit, I'd look forward to seeing some TIFF or DNG files converted directly from Fuji's RAW -- without any sharpening, noise reduction, curve work, etc.

4 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Feb 1, 2012)

i agree that there is always way too much emphasis put on pure stats. But on balance, this is a very expensive camera that comes with promises such as having better noise control than FF digital SLRs. Id say, from all the images that i have seen, that this is clearly not the case, even bringing the 6 year old 5D into the equation. And to also be fair to the detractors, how else can you validate these promises without peeking at the pixels just a little bit. Personally i like the idea of the X-Pro but can't help but feel that it is a masterpiece of marketing just as much as it is a good idea, it is also very expensive, although given the speed of the lenses they are relatively reasonably priced. For me Fuji have always been the Bose of photography but I'll be waiting for some proper analysis before i condemn or approve it

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Feb 1, 2012)

Matty Boy...I am with you. I do not need DxO etc. to see that there is something soft about ALL of the images that I persoanally have seen on the web from this camera, both on the Fuji website AND 3rd party images, including those posted here. I am hoping it is an NR issue or post processing etc. I can see that the dynamic range is there, the colors are beautiful no doubt, but the images from the Fuji XPro1 that I have seen are not tack sharp. For $3500 for a body and 3 lenses I certainly expect that.
Hopefully what we are seeing is NR smear, but then why would Fuji post example images on its own website that are not sharp?

0 upvotes
ljclark
By ljclark (Feb 1, 2012)

...Which is why (last sentence of my post above) I would be interested in seeing some files that were direct conversions from RAW to a non-compressed format.

I would also like to see some tripod shots to settle some of the "soft" issues.

P.S. The X-Pro 1 is not "very expensive". A Leica M9 is "very expensive". The X-Pro 1 is merely "expensive".

1 upvote
MPA1
By MPA1 (Feb 2, 2012)

I was firmly told on another forum on this site that this is a technical site and babbling on about art or plain old actual real life ought to be done on other sites!
I've never seen so much obsession with mere tools as I have on DPR.

0 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Feb 1, 2012)

This gotta be a joke ...

I don't know were the hell the revolution is ...

Wanna superb colors >> go SIGMA foveon.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Feb 1, 2012)

At least you will not always need photoshop PP to make your picture shine !

0 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (Feb 1, 2012)

"Wanna superb colors" from Quorn? Please, show your colorful photos from an overcast Quorn so we can compare!

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 1, 2012)

..not the sensor from SD1.

0 upvotes
theswede
By theswede (Feb 1, 2012)

Very demanding subjects, yet the camera delivers. Looks quite promising, definitely as good as or a lot better than most photos I've seen from southern Australian farms - there is a reason photos from there don't make National Geographic front pages that often.

3 upvotes
David0X
By David0X (Feb 1, 2012)

Gosh - sometimes there is useful stuff posted in these comments, so I keep reading them. Then every now and then something like this happens. I continue to be surprised by the deluge of ill informed and lazy comments by fools.

Taking a little time to research will show:

1: the guys are both professionals. Their websites contain a lot of stuff that shows that if you care to look. They are both working pros who know what they're doing.

2: If you read Christian's blog you will see that these are just a couple of quick images posted from day 1 of a four day shoot. This is not a review, it's just some shared photos by a guy who got a camera early and is looking forward to sharing some images as he discovers a bit about the camera.

There are many sensible and useful comments along these lines posted below, but they become hard to find amongst the asinine bashing.

By the way, I have been many times to Quorn where the images were taken. The colours look pretty well captured to me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
13 upvotes
Zachawry
By Zachawry (Feb 1, 2012)

"If you read Christian's blog you will see that these are just a couple of quick images posted from day 1 of a four day shoot."

Maybe that's the case, but since everybody has been looking forward to shots from the camera, it is totally predictable that people would expect quality from the first shots available.

To have completely throwaway shots be the first ones out there is pretty bad marketing on Fuji's part, and pretty bad judgement on the photographers'.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 1, 2012)

surely people at this stage are interested in what the camera can do, not the artistry displayed in the particular photo. So who cares if these are not award winning works of art, who cares about the composition and subject matter. In fact, I think it helps not to be dazzled by the art, the better to be able to discern the capability of the camera simply to capture what it is pointing at. For that these photos do a sterling job. Thanks for posting.

2 upvotes
webgeek
By webgeek (Feb 1, 2012)

Oh come on, you look like their best friends in defense. These two photographers knows that there will be thousands of DPR readers looking at their first images. If they are professional, they should know that this is their great opportunity to shine and possible have many people respect them for being the pros with a brand new game-changing camera on their hand. Instead they make a fool out of themselves by posting several unthoughtful images as well as their stupid chosen settings (Av, Shutter speed, iso). This is a waste of time for everyone and I feel bad for Fujifilm. I really like this setup and probably will buy the set, but these first images just make my stomach sick and clearly the fault of the photographers.

2 upvotes
tiberiousgracchus
By tiberiousgracchus (Feb 1, 2012)

Agree totally. It is a new system and to get the best out of these cameras will take a bit more time.Great pics btw. I think they wanted to get images out there asap.Im really tempted to go for it based on these samples.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 1, 2012)

I am baffled by the range of responses. The video posted with these, er, pix, conveys nothing whatsoever about the camera. All it offers is a couple of people "wearing" the latest retro toys and saying how nice they are: why bother? As for the images they posted, they are about as uninspired as anything I have ever seen which was intended to illustrate the performance of a camera.

1 upvote
David0X
By David0X (Feb 1, 2012)

^Zachawry - I take your point. I have a suspicion that this was not all that well planned. I'm guessing that Christian's credibility allowed him to get a camera out of an over-eager Sales manager in South Australia, and things were not planned from above.

On the other hand, people complain about shots on the official site being too stage-managed, so it may have been deliberate.

0 upvotes
David0X
By David0X (Feb 1, 2012)

^SeeRoy - Yes; that video is naff.

Personally I found the pics mildly interesting and the video less so.
I was an early adopter of the x100 but have no need to jump in to this one.
My feeling is that the IQ will be just fine, and it will come down to handling as to whether I buy this camera.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Feb 1, 2012)

Christian should use SmugmMug so he doesn't have to worry about his bandwidth being eat up :-) I guess he was getting too much traffic and wanted the links pulled ;-)

0 upvotes
Zachawry
By Zachawry (Feb 1, 2012)

Featureless, colorless landscapes are such a great subject for showing off a new camera...

3 upvotes
webgeek
By webgeek (Feb 1, 2012)

Fujifilm, you need to take the camera back before more harms done. You have a great product in the hand of wanna-be testers. These guys don't even think about what they shoot and what they post. This is just a shame to see.

2 upvotes
CALLAGHAN92
By CALLAGHAN92 (Feb 1, 2012)

Obviously these guys are not professional photographers, They' re not even photographers. Maybe we can suggest to FUJI to choose much more efficient people to test the equipment and why not great photographers. It could be a good way to promote this awesome camera (on the paper for the moment).

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 1, 2012)

If they earn their living by taking photographs, then they are by definition professional photographers. If someone is willing to pay for a bad photo, then a pro will be able to sell it. However, I don't think these photos were meant to showcase the technical, pixel-peeping performance of the camera, but rather to give examples of artistic/journalistic real world usage.

0 upvotes
CALLAGHAN92
By CALLAGHAN92 (Feb 1, 2012)

So we can dream better and pray God they stop taking pictures.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (Feb 1, 2012)

Given Mr Fletcher's normally very high quality landscape shots, I'm not what this crap is supposed to tell me?

0 upvotes
Brian Mcdonnell
By Brian Mcdonnell (Feb 1, 2012)

Wow....being called out by a bunch of camera enthusiasts. Nothing worse than watching the end of photography as an art form. Oh well....

Pictures look great....definitely look forward to putting this thing to work. Just going to be a wonderful tool for creating. I'm definitely excited. Definitely appreciate the photographers for providing what I wanted to see in terms of real world application.

2 upvotes
voz
By voz (Feb 1, 2012)

"Page Not Found"

0 upvotes
chopsteeks
By chopsteeks (Feb 1, 2012)

A perfect example of a good camera on the hands of bad photographers. Just plain horrible.

2 upvotes
HiRez
By HiRez (Feb 1, 2012)

Not very impressive, but I think we need more info, more samples to really know. One thing I do know is this camera had better have MUCH better AF and MF than the X100 or I'm not going to be interested. It's such a letdown to have an over $1,000 camera that can't focus as fast or accurately as a $200 point and shoot.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 1, 2012)

yikes... i am getting Polish urls trying to pop-up... but my anti-viral software is blocking them from being opened... while viewing CFletcher's website... strange.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Feb 1, 2012)

I figured it out...the images are second rate and not sharp because they have a virus.

0 upvotes
webgeek
By webgeek (Feb 1, 2012)

Horrible sample images from two supposedly pros. I can't believe what I am seeing. Very disappointed in both the camera as well as the photographers they hire.

1 upvote
Riprap
By Riprap (Feb 1, 2012)

The ISO 6400 image is particularly interesting, compared to something like the Canon EOS 60D. The sample image in the gallery here was shot at f1.2 with the Canon (displaying far more noise, and less sharpness) yet surprisingly (or not) all the commentators gushed over it. What I find disconcerting, is not the camera, or lens, but the vilification that has been dished out to the two photographers, it's like being in a school yard with a gang of 14 year olds. Time to leave this place altogether I feel.

4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 1, 2012)

Indeed, those who bash the skills of the photographers are juvenile.

Having said that, the Fuji ISO 6400 shot is taken with dim natural lighting while the Canon ISO 6400 f/1.2 shot is taken with indoor lighting, quite a difference there. The Fuji shot may be RAW while Canon shot is obviously in-camera jpeg. A side-by-side comparison is probably more appropriate. Need to wait for proper reviews. And no DXOMark please 'cos their tests FAIL to uncover any in-camera RAW processing (read: V1/J1).

Also, Fujifilm CLAIMS sensor quality is comparable to full-frame. They further states AA filter is removed, thus promising sharper images. But the ISO 100 shots do not seem to lend support to these assertions. That's why the disappoint sets in.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 1, 2012)

Actually, DxOMArk stated clearly that the Nikon 1 cameras "cook" their RAW files. See the last paragraph on this page: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Nikon-1-series-The-tests/Nikon-V1-review-of-the-high-end-Nikon-1

1 upvote
cptbtptpbcptdtptp
By cptbtptpbcptdtptp (Feb 1, 2012)

hi fellows, got this link with fotos via taiwan website http://www.pbase.com/hpicckcy/fujifilm_xpro1....

1 upvote
BBnose
By BBnose (Feb 1, 2012)

it seems even bigger than M9 in size.

0 upvotes
Skipper494
By Skipper494 (Feb 1, 2012)

As I said, the EXIF info shows they have been Photoshopped on a Mac. Let's have the real photos, not degraded ones.
Skipper.

2 upvotes
Uri Ben
By Uri Ben (Feb 1, 2012)

Very dull, boring pictures - no wonder they are forbidden...

3 upvotes
DioCanon
By DioCanon (Feb 1, 2012)

Michael Coyne's are actually a couple of goods shots,
I cant understand why Fletcher was even bothered to waste time uploading his photos...

1 upvote
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 1, 2012)

403 forbidden, says the link after i clicked it. Was it uploaded over Flickr (blocked from where I am right now) or something?

Anyway about the photos....

I'm surprised they released real-world samples, not scientific tests which a lot of people like seeing. Now as to whether the photographers who took the photos are pro or not for the photos to come out like this, doesn't really matter much. Appreciation of beauty is subjective.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 1, 2012)

The blog says that the photos were not retouched in any way, but the sheep photo at least has been resized. That makes a huge difference in evaluating noise. I didn't try to open the other photos. There is some awful script on the website that was making my browser freeze.

0 upvotes
David Rosser
By David Rosser (Feb 1, 2012)

AVG Anti-Virus blocked the site as dodgy when I tried it.

0 upvotes
Hafcc
By Hafcc (Feb 1, 2012)

My Opera browser warned me too about the possibility of this site to contain malware.

0 upvotes
rleue2
By rleue2 (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm shocked! Fujifilm should have reviewed these photographers' images prior to posting them. If indeed FujiFilm had reviewed them, then shame on Fujifilm! These photos can't be from professional photographers, can they? Come on, give me a break. I'm not going to give up on this camera yet, but if this is the best test that Fujifilm can do with thousands of great photographers champing-at-the-bit to run this camera through its paces, I might just give up on FujiFilm (the company). Unbelievable! (I would comment that only 4 images wouldn't show us anything, but with this quality, four is plenty.)

2 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Feb 1, 2012)

Dead links

0 upvotes
cassano
By cassano (Feb 1, 2012)

I think people should at least show some respect to these two photographers. On the other hand, it's a bit surprising that dpreview decided to post this on the main page, since this link provides not much valuable information except meaningless fighting in the forum...

These photos are merely quick test shots, and there are no camera-to-camera comparison or photographer-to-photographer comparison. Any judgement on the quality of the camera or the photographer seems questionable for me...

4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 1, 2012)

The photos are fine for camera examination. They do not reflect in any way the skills of the photographers.

The issue is the image quality leaves much to be desired.

3 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Feb 1, 2012)

Fuji is rather big! Or, maybe those guys are small :)

2 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Feb 1, 2012)

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /blog/wp-content/uploads/DSF9287raw.jpg on this server.

0 upvotes
ecsh1
By ecsh1 (Feb 1, 2012)

These guys are pro's?
Wow

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Feb 1, 2012)

The color and contrast in those images are godawful. Can't wait to find out how many people want to waste $1700 on this joke of a camera...and that's BEFORE the lens...

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 1, 2012)

I think we have to assume they were shot specifically to allow post-processing. The processed examples are much more impressive.

3 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Feb 1, 2012)

Man, check the attitude at the door. Go get yourself a Canon G12. That's all you can handle.

2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 1, 2012)

Richard: Maybe the images need contrast and color processing. But sharpening? I thought these images need no sharpening since no AA filters are used?

0 upvotes
David0X
By David0X (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey - I live in South Australia and have been to Quorn. I'm afraid the colours are accurate. Not sure how that can make them Godawful

0 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (Feb 1, 2012)

Four? Four?! That should tell us something.

0 upvotes
Greg Pond
By Greg Pond (Feb 1, 2012)

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /blog/wp-content/uploads/Having-a-beer.jpg on this server.

That's all I get when I try to open them.
I was able to watch the video though.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Robgo2
By Robgo2 (Feb 1, 2012)

Unbelievable! It is virtually impossible to draw meaningful conclusions based on these image samples, yet so many "experts" are fully prepared to pronounce the camera a complete dud. Lighten up, people, and don't be so insecure over the possibility that Fuji may have produced a camera that outperforms your own.

Rob

1 upvote
karinangelika
By karinangelika (Feb 1, 2012)

It would have been terrific if Fujifilm had managed to get this camera into the hands of some Magnum-style photojournalists, Magnum's own photographers having been tied up in their deal with Leica.

I dream of seeing photographs a little bit like the kind of images I make being used to show off the gear I am considering buying. But that almost never happens. Pity.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Feb 1, 2012)

To use 18 mm with 1/250 at f3.2 with ISO6400 is absurd....IMO.
Too much light. This photo can't show the real situation with shadows at high ISO. The same with photo 18 mm at f3.6 with 1/200 at ISO1000.
Anyway, I see the traces of NR at ISO1000 and 6400.

ISO400 is not bad, but nothing special at all.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Feb 1, 2012)

As a landscape guy, i'm surprised with these shots - flat, dull light and uninspired compositions. Looks like they phoned-in on the assignment to be critical.

Also, ISO 400 jpegs and F5.6 landscapes? I don't shoot landscapes like that, and I definitely would not if I were doing work for a manufacturer to 'show off' image quality possibilities of a new camera.

Does not really show off the skills of the photographer or capabilities of the camera at all.

Fuji - hit me up, i'll do a better job, in a more exotic locale and for a lower fee.

The Fuji's RAW image quality will be fantastic. Its challenges lie more in its relatively larger size (for mirrorless RF style) and its price.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
rrr_hhh
By rrr_hhh (Feb 1, 2012)

It all comes to what you think is a good landscape picture :
Common taste points toward saturation and contrast cranked to death, clouds looking so poundering and HDRed, that you are going to be scratched by their weight, etc.. And let's not forget the warmy soapy sunsets...

Some more subtle photographers aren't going by those common taste standards, they are appreciated by subtle photographers, not necessarily by the mainstream crowds.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Michael Klein
By Michael Klein (Feb 1, 2012)

can't see them...getting forbidden when i try to open the images up...

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Feb 1, 2012)

Same here on all of the images

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Feb 1, 2012)

Pretty sure these are not from RAW - I think they said 'Raw' in the context of being straight from the camera.

Also, 100% sure these are not the first high rez X pro shots to hit the web.

Sensor looks like a winner with respect to noise - detail and acuity ill be a given, but these shots don't show that.

0 upvotes
capanikon
By capanikon (Feb 1, 2012)

Looks good to me. I'm really pleased with the work Fujifilm is doing.

2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 1, 2012)

RAW images processed in photoshop? Huh? Is that a mistake? These look more like horrible in-camera jpeg images.

If this is indeed correct, then Fujifilm really has no idea what they are doing with their awfully designed sensor. All that jazz about dynamic range, low noise, blah, blah, blah are nothing more than hype and sales talk.

Sorry, this camera is not even worth a second look.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 1, 2012)

Note the lower-case use of the word raw. I'm tring to find out more details about how they've been processed.

2 upvotes
rrr_hhh
By rrr_hhh (Feb 1, 2012)

There are now two versions of each of the landscape shots on the web, one out of camera and the other showing light post processing, like one would do to make a flat picture look better.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Feb 1, 2012)

Astonishingly poor choice of content and ISO for samples of a new camera with no AA filter. We need to see DETAIL.

5 upvotes
Skipper494
By Skipper494 (Feb 1, 2012)

These are all Photoshopped and badly. I can do better in free FastStone. Let's see them out of the camera.
Skipper.

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Feb 1, 2012)

LOL - these are the first photos from a super phenomenal camera???? Jeez... the 'landscape' photos...must...not...click..on...them... Seriously, my old D80 can do much better than those... or is it the photographer? Fuji should be serious when introducing initial results like this!

0 upvotes
Sevventh
By Sevventh (Feb 1, 2012)

What is interesting is the picture of the man drinking the beer is already rated 2 stars when I import it into Lightroom. I would like to see some 5 star images please ;-)

3 upvotes
Brandon Feinberg
By Brandon Feinberg (Feb 1, 2012)

The ones done by the landscape photographer are simply not very good pictures due to the fact that they are boring compositions but the ones done by the journalist show the sharpness of the lens it's no Leica lens but the results look as good as any cropped frame dslr. I would be interested to see the performance of the other lenses.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 216
123