Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview

I'm really not sure which pictures you've been seeing. The X-Pro1 is sharper and cleaner than any APS-C, and competes with high end full frame cameras in terms of resolution. This isn't just my opinion, check out the Dx0mark scores or any objective image quality tests.

Some people are fearful of change. Even when it does not, or does not need to, affect them.

Maybe in all the pixel peeping geekness you have forgotten how a really good picture looks?

If you all think the latest Fuji sensor is sharp, have a look at the last picture on this page.
http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html
The Fuji idea was a flash in the pan.

That new 35mm f:1.4 Fuji has be tested to be one of the best and sharpest new lenses in recent years... When I took the first test shots against a Canon 50mm 1.4 I had to check the EXIF data several times because I could not believe I had been shooting wide open with both lenses, Canon frames were like they were shot through a fog, and Fuji images unbelievably sharp all across the frame.

I've used the 35/1.4 on an X-Pro 1 and it's a stunner. Awesome glass.

The D800 is a different matter, but I wouldn't expect a radical difference between the K-30's 16MP APS-C CMOS sensor and the X-E1/X-Pro1's 16MP APS-C CMOS sensor.

I had high hopes for this camera. But based on the most terrible display of photos that Fuji has posted on their website to promote this camera will only turn people away.

Seriously Fuji?? Seriously?? Either this is a terible camera or the guy that took these pictures doesn't have a clue what he's doing. They are an abomination. My three year old grand daughter can take better pictures than that. Fuji, if you want to promote and sell this camera, these are NOT the pictures to do it with.

What were you thinking??? So, based on these sample pictures, I can only conclude that this camera is not very desirable with terrible image quality. Certainly the image quality is not in the same league as the X10, X100 and Pro X1.

Let's just hope it's the photographer and not the camera. Fuji, get rid of those terrible snapshots you have posted. My blind grandmother can take better pictures that that. Wake up Fuji, this is your reputation.

I shoot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and, while I don't believe I have unusually large hands, the camera fits perfectly in my hands and is very well balanced. My previous digital camera was a Nikon D700 and my last handheld camera before the X-Pro1 was a Mamiya 645 AFD so I guess I'm used to (and prefer) larger cameras. But I honestly don't find the X-Pro1 chunky or brick-like in the slightest.. it's a perfect size for me. But each to their own, of course!

@marike6 - I think you're over-exaggerating. A decent EVF really doesn't look or perform that badly in low light. I have an Oly VF3 for my m4/3 camera, which is far inferior than the X-E1's OLED EVF, and I have no problems with graininess or lag, even when shooting in low light. I can still see the image quite clearly, and I've yet to experience any lag that has prevented me from capturing my images. (Of course, I'm not shooting high speed action photography in low light, and I doubt most other people are either with these cameras.)

Given that an OVF makes the X-Pro1 so much more expensive and larger than the X-E1, with not much advantage gained, I don't think most people will ever miss not having a hybrid OVF on the X-E1. In other words, the hybrid OVF is not *that much* nicer ($700 nicer?!) over just having a good EVF like on the X-E1. Sure, the "large, complex and expensive hybrid finder" (dpreview's description) is certainly a great technical feat. But worth the price?

How is it "nicer" than the X-Pro1?

No optical view finder, the LCD is smaller, battery life will be shorter.

What's nicer about it? It's cheaper, that's it.

Look on the positive side - whatever you buy will make great images. Right now you can choose just about anything in a given price range and know that it will do more or less as good a job as anything else for the money. Go out, shoot, relax.

Take landscape pix.

The NEX-5N is $300???

Use AF lenses that are worth buying?

Have smaller, better lenses, better IQ, better JPEGs, better direct handling, better, better, better...

Better all round build quality, a more thoughtful design, a faster kit zoom lens, and of course a more logical user interface.

Mein gott!!! I have just perceived that there are lots of Fuji insiders who post here!
They have already used the new Fuji and can testimony in favour of its astoundingly good build quality, handling, Image output, etc.

Suddenly, I feel I am incredibly uninformed...

I don't own one, but just having a cam that you operate the aperture via the lens and the shutter speed via a dial on top makes this, for me, a much nicer prospect than the Nex range, plus some great primes as well. And it looks much nicer too, to me anyway

If you want gizmos and gadgets, get the Nex, if your interested in taking pics, get this!

NEX 5N doesn't have a built-in EVF, doesn't have a standard hotshoe, doesn't have a built-in flash, doesn't have as many physical controls, and doesn't have as strong a lens system.

While I usually don't care for reviews from people who have never even been in the same room with the camera, if this has identical image quality to the X-Pro1, it seems resonable to assume the images will look the same as those from the X-Pro1.

But fundamentally no big difference between the two cameras.

X-E1's body is the size of X100 sans the lens. Not big at all.

Apart from that, X-E1s controls are fundamentally different to NEX7s controls. Dedicated vs. modal. Both are good, but they are different.

Nowadays the body does not really matter in terms of image quality. It would be very very difficult to see any difference in image quality among these mirrorless bodies (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus) unless you shoot very high ISOs all the time. It comes down to which control layout / ergonomics you are more comfortable with. What does determine which system someone should go for is the lens selection. Micro four thirds wins here hands down, but Fuji has done an amazing job of releasing some fantastic lenses in such a short time (although the Fuji system is a bit more expensive than the micro four thirds). I don't know why Sony still keeps coming out with awesome bodies, but mediocre and large lenses.

I don't think it's too big. With smaller bodies a lot of people complain that the controls are too close together. As far as comparison with NEX7 goes, this is a different control paradigm, much more old school. It's not about which one is better, it's about who prefers what.

Do realize the split ring focusing aids were effectively PDAF.

I doubt it was a design goal to be able to shoot sports with a rangefinder-style camera. I don't see many Leicas at the local track meet, either.

Old lenses were desinged to focus manually,old viewfinders were desinged to focus manually easier.But today we have half AF half manual focus systems...
So we customers have rights to expect PDAF

So by that you disqualify all current Samsung, Ricoh, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica M and X, as well as all Fujifilm cameras.
Yes, must be easy to make since even the giant Canon cant get it to work.
Can se no reason at all. No sir, none at all.

I'm with sensibill - when I had a dSLR I rarely needed to use continuous AF, even when shooting my kids moving. There is a lot you can do, like pre-focusing or getting parallel to the action to minimize the relative speed. There is a big difference between photos of moving subjects, and sports photography... It isn't like PDAF is a perfect technology, either!

PDAF isn't just for sports....surely you must know that. It makes photographing anything that moves much easier. Why not just throw it in there? The people who want to use it will, and the ones who don't, won't. Because there were no amazing AF systems "back in the day" is a terrible argument. I doubt any of those people are still using manual focus film cameras, and I wonder why? Technology is a wonderful thing.

Nikon and probably now Sony have put very good PDAF in their mirrorless cameras. It is only an advantage to have that as an option - you can always use CDAF if you prefer. #1 criticism of mirrorless cameras right now is their AF, which is why they are starting to introduce PDAF.

Anyways, it's just my opinion. Why not expand your customer base with a simple addition of a feature?

The point is not that PDAF isn't a desirable feature, but that the lack of it does not mean you are limited to static subjects... I agree that it would make the camera more appealing, but it surely has a cost and time to market impact and goes beyond the 'simple addition' of a feature. If they included it we'd be complaining about the price :)

match FF ? Rofl

Not a wrong direction.

X series now have multiple directions.

@Essai: those are not my words. Read some reviews, many praised outcome of this sensor with specific technology and compared it to FF.

So the "wrong direction" is ditching the funky hybrid OVF that only offers 3 FOV options and doesn't show you what's in focus in order to offer an otherwise similar body at a lower price ? What would you have cut to drop the price from $1700 to $1000 in an entry level body ? (I tried one and found the non-TTL VF to be odd and kind of pointless and would be happy to have a cheaper, smaller, simpler body). Don't get me wrong - I like optical VFs and enjoy my DSLR ... I also like rangefinder focusing (I have a couple old compact rangefinders). But I'll take a TTL EVF over a "window" (I can always take my eye from the VF to see what the scene really looks like).

@Andy Crowe,

As evident from the comments on this website, no one actually reads anything.

Sure, because those two were the first ever to put a viewfinder in the corner, dials on the right and lens in the center.

The design is nearly identical to their own older medium format rangefinders.

Thanks to a lot of in camera RAW noise reduction. I must say it is probably the best in camera NR I have seen. Still looses some detail but an acceptable amount.

D4 huh, i'm sure you can find something even further from any kind of resemblance to the Fuji X-Trans series with a little effort. Come on man, that the best you can do. ;)

There's more to a camera than high-iso you know.

Picture quality certainly is on par with D4 or even better (have to run some tests...), they both are great. In other ways they are not comparable at all. My D4 is a pro action tool, X-Pro1 is an "art camera"... Totally different, but both are very good at what they are good at.