Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Our Fujifilm X-M1 hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on Jun 25, 2013 at 01:01 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $499.006 deals

Just posted: Our detailed Fujifilm X-M1 hands-on preview. Fujifilm's latest miniaturised mirrorless model represents something of a design departure from its previous X-system cameras, eschewing the traditional control dials seen on the X-E1 and X-Pro1 for a more contemporary control layout. It also forgoes an eye-level viewfinder, making do with a tilting rear screen instead. Is this a betrayal of everything Fujifilm owners have grown to love about their cameras, or is there more to the little X-M1 than meets the eye? Read our preview to find out.

114
I own it
45
I want it
19
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 117
rusticus
By rusticus (10 months ago)

the only mirrorless camera without a viewfinder, which I buy, is the K-01

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
flysurfer
By flysurfer (10 months ago)

I went out for two hours and shot a few samples with the X-M1 and the two new lenses: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157634347959980/

0 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

Should we care if it doesn't have X-Trans CMOS II sensor? Does anything even have the II other than the 100s?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

is X-Twhatever anything good?

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (10 months ago)

no, because the EXR sensor is the better

0 upvotes
Najib
By Najib (10 months ago)

Folks, get over the fact that it doesn't have a viewfinder. There's a reason it's priced at what it is. If you want a viewfinder, then Fuji wants you to get the XE-1 or X-Pro1

0 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (10 months ago)

The viewfinder crowd is soooooo predictable. Just like clockwork.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

There's a "viewfinder crowd"? I thought there were only potential customers expressing their own likes and dislikes of this camera.

So when DPR lists a "Con" of the Pentax K-01 as "No built-in EVF, (and no provision for adding an external one)" or rates the Canon G15 higher than the Nikon P7700 for Design & Handling because of the G15's optical finder, you are here to say they don't know what they are talking about? Of perhaps DPR is in this "viewfinder crowd" that you speak of.

7 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

The cell phone camera users and the Nikon worshipers are predictable as well but it's no business of mine.

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

How could you spend your time on stuff like this when you STILL have not released a full review of the Hasselblad Lunar with mahogany wood grip?

And why have you not addressed how the new lens would be equivalent if it were used on the latest Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC3) used by the Hubble Space Telescope, the sensor of which measures about 6 cm square? I might need to know that.

Please consider refunding my subscription to this site!

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (10 months ago)

It's great. The other models in the X- range have viewfinders if you need one that badly. Stop whining.

5 upvotes
cheenachatze
By cheenachatze (10 months ago)

My dream (camera) come true! After that, I just hope Sigma will release their excellent and inexpensive DN primes for this mount.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HomoSapiensWannaBe
By HomoSapiensWannaBe (10 months ago)

This is an appealing, small camera that should produce excellent image quality. I've been holding off getting a mirrorless and this model may persuade me to buy into the Fuji X system. I currently use a D600 and several lenses.

If Fuji continues to release other small prime lenses like the 27mm, we can have a system similar to the Minolta CLE (Leica M mount, 35mm film) with 28, 40 & 90 lenses.

Imo, the 27mm is priced too high, so who knows how well they will do with it. Perhaps they will offer a kit version with this lens for only $799, or maybe a zoom/prime kit for $899. This would further increase my interest!

As for XF lenses not having aperture rings, recall that Canon EOS and Nikon G lenses don't either. Small front/rear rotary dials are perfectly functional to control shutter speed and aperture in combination with a traditional PASM mode dial. It also saves on weight and manufacturing cost to do it this way.

4 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (10 months ago)

I'd be really interested in reading an analythical comparison among this camera and the samsung nx 300.

4 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (10 months ago)

I'm a DSLR fan who has had the pleasure of owning and using Fujifilm fixed lens, rangefinder equipped, medium format film cameras. Loved them! So, even though I'm not in the market for a mirrorless camera of any brand, it's great to see that Fujifilm is on a roll with their APS-C sensor based X-series cameras. Just like their medium format film era cameras, these X-series cameras are functional and handsome devices that I'm sure are capable of delivering excellent image quality. WAY TO GO FUJIFILM!

PS., For those folks who were predicting full frame sensors would somehow kill off APS-C, just take a look at the number of new APS-C based cameras, whether mirrorless or DSLR, that are being brought to market compared to the number of FF models. APS-C is here to stay and the marketplace is better off for it.

11 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

«APS-C is here to stay and the marketplace is better off for it.»
The same can be said about smartphones. Clueless.

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

ManuelVilardeMarcedo: poser. Anyone not using a Phase One or similar medium format back is clearly an amateur. Did Ansel Adams use 35mm for his paid work? I think not. QED, my friend.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

ASP-C is large enough and 35mm format is not needed,
as long as we can have same large aperture lenses
(which is not true at the moment).

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

...Because everyone who craves for image quality is a poser, right?

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

Indeed not sir! I crave for image quality, and I say that your 35mm image sensor is naught but a toy.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Manuel- I think you are missing his point. You call someone clueless yet using similar logic, someone else could call you clueless and use the same logic & attitude you espouse on you.

I dont' think the issue is that you crave higher image quality for the work you do.

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

It must be good, because it's retro-looking. :-)

7 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (10 months ago)

Here are some Office Samples, looks like they use noise reduction even at base ISO, looks a bit smudgy to me the pixel peeper:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_m1/sample_images/

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Its the same sensor of the xe1/xpro1. We know what excellent image quality to expect.

6 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (10 months ago)

I think Fuji have their range spot on, affordable fast glass that is mostly good, and in the odd case excellent - perhaps not quite as good as some make out but price performance is very good. They have cannibalised their x-pro market a bit in chasing the mid market with the X-E1 which is heavily discounted now. It does make me wonder why they are discounted substantially so soon - the x100 price was like this as well. The image quality is like marmite some will tell you its the best ever and others are cynical when there is evidence of noise reduction at base ISO, raw tinkering and mis-reported ISO, this tarnishes things a bit. Personally (and i speak as an ex- X-E1 user) I think the images look good but they aren't noticeably better than any other system at this price point. Im sure plenty will disagree with me on this but as a store owner customer feedback seems to reflect this, its a shame that some of the build issues that plagued the x100 appear to have been carried over though.

2 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

Curious matt_boy, what "build issues"?

1 upvote
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

It looks like a logical addition to the X line. Top mode and control dials, X mount and tilting screen puts it in the same "mirrorless" class other manufacturers are addressing. Good move.

Now if one of them would come out with a (detachable or retractable) shade screen like the TLRs had...

0 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

Yay for two dials. Hopefully this will become the trend on sub $1,000 bodies. It's just cruel to withhold those control dials in the name of "simplicity," while adding any number of push buttons with arcane icons and a labyrinth of electronic menus. It has nothing to do with simplicity for entry-level users, and everything to do with segmenting their product line. There are better ways to justify more expensive cameras. External controls for all!

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.
And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.

2 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (10 months ago)

Sure, very fair comment. An APS-C (or smaller) sensor, of course, isn't going to compete with FF. Neither can a Ford Mondeo compete with a 1984 Ferrari GTO. Larger sensosr means larger cameras, more weight and cost. Lots of people don't want that. Ideally, we want the performance of that 1984 GTO for the cost of the Ford. On a personal level, and that is what it is all about really, neither do I particularly want to carry bulky and heavy gear when Fell walking in the rain. I suppose it is a matter of design compromise.

10 upvotes
AndreaV
By AndreaV (10 months ago)

Hard to get the point, I could also say that a FF camera is not comparable to a medium format digital back, but not many people would have the money to buy a Hasselblad H5D. The X-Pro1 + 35XF that I use can deliver results that are perfectly comparable to my canon 1D mkiii, even with a smaller sensor, and it's a level that we couldn't even dream of 10 years ago.
I think that is a path that is leading to millions of people that want a small system, more flexible than a compact camera and that can deliver very good IQ at an acceptable price.

12 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Surely one day full frame sensors will become mainstream as production prices drop. In the days of film 35mm were the rule and smaller formats the exception.
...And it would make much more sense to compare the Ferrari GTO to medium format! As for mirrorless, they're more like BMW and Audi than Ford Mondeo.

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (10 months ago)

Full frame sensors are better in general compared to most smaller sensors, but not entirely, what you say about dynamic range is untrue, as the GH3, and other professional/video cameras which have APS-C or mFT sensors have greater DR than say the 5DIII, the Arri Alexa is super 35mm and has as much (or more depending) DR than the D800 even. And Fuji cameras are far from pointless, they produce beautiful photos, the sensors and lenses are very capable and for one, the well regarded wedding photographer Ryan Brenizer has used the Fuji X100 and even Oly OM-D for his work with great results.
The technological limitation of digital sensors in compact systems is with the lenses + AF, they already have to be large with the bad angle of response compared to film, and the extra AF mechanism adds to size and weight. And even once FF MILCs come out, as you also stated, the price would probably be a problem, so cropped cameras will still have a point; being affordable.

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

What you write strikes me as naive. There are APS-C sensors that outclass several full frame sensors in dynamic range - like the one in the Pentax K-5/Nikon D7000. Moreover, for a lot of photography you don't need to match the DR (if that was the case because as I just mentioned, that is not the case).

FF may drop, but APS-C will also drop. And you have the size and weight of lenses which is a mighty important issue for many photographers- in fact, one key reason why many photographers are leaving their big DSLR at home and bringing cameras like these instead.

Current technologies have more than enough DR for a lot (and I mean a lot) of work. You mention these as if these cameras were so deficient as if we should all sit and weight for that glorious future you talk about. Quite frankly doesn't strike me you do much photography when I read what you write, or think the kind of photography you do is the only valid one.

6 upvotes
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (10 months ago)

It will go nowhere for certain photographers, and it will never equal to full frame, but mirrorless systems so far made an incredible progress and in some areas, it excels beyond passing conventional mirrored systems.
Also I think it is fair to say that full frame is not the only ultimate measurement, that starts all and ends all. APS-C sensor have been around for more than a decade now, and it is here to stay. It may not be the choice for some professional photographers, but in a sense of sheer marketing, APS-C is a very lucrative middle ground.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
TakePictures
By TakePictures (10 months ago)

Never say never. The term "cropped sensor" is relative to old-school 35mm film, but why would that remain the standard? I understand that with the current technology bigger sensors have an advantage, but this advantage is becoming smaller. Think future, think better technology, think 1.8 constant-aperture zooms (Sigma) for equivalent DOF, etc. So where's the full-frame advantage then? Do you really think the majority of us will be dragging around huge FF DSLRs with equally huge lenses 10 years from now?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (10 months ago)

I'm curious, which camera's results did you compare ?

Because for example D5200 sensor matches DR of D700 throughout the ISO range, being 1 stop better @ ISO200.

And don't tell me people were unable to create stunning photography before D800 was launched.

4 upvotes
AndreaV
By AndreaV (10 months ago)

I'm pretty sure in 10 years many people will still use FF DSLRs because anyway, using the same technology, a bigger sensor (or better, a sensor with bigger pixels) gives better quality. Nevertheless, as technology progress, less people will need the best quality on the market given by the bigger sensors...

1 upvote
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (10 months ago)

Well gee, I guess if you can't make/buy the best camera tech out there, don't even bother. Great theory buddy.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Crazy talk. I use FF, APS-C, and m4/3. I've produce excellent images with all three. If you're going "nowhere", then it's your own fault. If you can't produce good pictures, blame your own lack of talent and skill. Because the reality is that people are producing beautiful images, regardless of the format or system.

10 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

Sounds very similar to the arguments made about 35mm from medium format users in the 60's. And the sheet film users about medium format shooters in the 30's.
The amateur format of today is the pro format of tomorrow.
Ask the 'togs at the Chicago SUn Time about phones.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Photomonkey, I'm not sure you got the Chicago Sun-Times story right, because it goes way beyond any discussion about photographic technology. We are talking about men and women who are now unemployed because some CEO had the brilliant idea that a reporter with an iPhone can do the same job as a photojournalist (which means said reporters will perform two tasks while getting the same wages). Doesn't that shock you? It certainly shocks me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Well, well... I probably should have considered the fanboy factor and refrained from expressing my opinion. That way I'd be spared from some rather aggressive replies I got. I didn't realize my comment was so outrageous and insulting for some.
I use a micro 4/3 camera and a 35mm film one and have tried some APS-C-based cameras; I even gave an EOS 5D MkII a try. My frustration about small sensors has to do with the way they handle highlights and shadows, as a result of a mediocre dynamic range. On the other hand, my experience with film tells me makers are more worried about satisfying uninformed consumers than catching up with film's still unsurpassed ability to cope with highlights. Sony is an honourable exception, as they work very hard to improve their sensors' dynamic range - even on smaller ones.
Of course you can get great image quality out of cameras with smaller sensors. This is, after all, what matters the most. I just think things could be even better if makers wanted to.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (10 months ago)

@Manuel:
I don't agree to your judgement. APS-C and 4/3 are the right way to go i.m.o.

1. FF digital is not like FF film, because it is bigger and more expensive.

2. APSC and 4/3 have long surpassed the quality of film. The increase in quality FF offers is totally irrelevant for most people.
DR is not an issue anymore.

3. Why was 35mm so successful? It was cheaper, lighter and totally sufficient in quality for most users compared to MF. Same applies to APS today.

Regards,
Michael

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Michael, thanks for your reply. However, I must say that what I wrote matches my findings. I can't stand blown highlights, and digital sensors give them to me all the time.
I don't agree with you when you say «APSC and 4/3 have long surpassed the quality of film». What about noise? what about - again - dynamic range? Image quality isn't all about resolution.
And DR is still an issue, and will be until makers realize digital does have shortcomings.
Also, FF digital emulates the 36x24mm of 35mm film.Some FF sensors are actually smaller than 35mm, as it is the case of the Leica M8 and M9.
Now read this: http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dxo.com%2Fsites%2Fdump.dxo.com%2Ffiles%2Fdxoimages%2Fiq%2Fsci-publications%2F2012%2520Film_vs_Digital_final_copyright.pdf&ei=REXDUeXzG6LB7AbVp4G4BA&usg=AFQjCNFJ394iHqVhqV4FnDnGvpqRhLPNDw&sig2=Z6pZMdrRkByGS55sX5kL3w&bvm=bv.48175248,d.ZGU
Happy readings!
Regards,
M.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (10 months ago)

Crazy talk, as someone who has owned M43, DX and now FX, I have found huge differences in the end image, DX or APSC outperformed M43 noticeably and FX/FF is noticeably 'better' than APSC/DX, my photos have an almost 3D like quality compared to DX.

I shoot with primes and, for me, switching to FX meant my lenses are far wider and primes are so much more compact than most DX zooms, so it's actually much easier to carry around (D600 + nifty fifty f1.4).

Once you get into primes you'll never return to zooms......

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (10 months ago)

Full frame costs at least twice as much as an APS-C sensor with equivalent pixel density. APS-C can't match full frame, but is the difference in performance worth double the price? That's a question individual users make. To me it's a more than acceptable compromise.

3 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. "Full Frame" sensors will never equal medium format. The way to go is the one Phase One pointed at with the IQ280: medium format mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a medium format sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a medium format film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.
And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the 645DF+ for those who can't do without one.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Well, not all film had great dynamic range. Slide film has pretty limited dynamic range, and you were constantly in danger of blowing highlights with slide film. And yet, slide film was the preferred film for many photographers. Kodachrome had about 6 stops of dynamic range. (According to DxOMark, the GH2's (m4/3) sensor has 11.3 stops of dynamic range.) And in spite of Kodachrome's limited DR, it's considered one of the all-time favorite films amongst many film photographers. I guess the point is that image quality isn't all about dynamic range!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

"Cropped sensors will never equal full frame."...I would say that so called "full frame" is just cropped sensor by definition. The real format is the big format so your full frame will never equal it.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Den Sh: ahahaha very funny, surely there is a circus waiting for your numbers somewhere near you.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Not fanboyism Manuel. Your original post came across as sort of categorical and condescending. Moreover, some of your claims were factually wrong. I understand if for your it doesn't work and you think "that's your findings' but looks like not all your findings agree with other's people or independent RAW analysis like the one that Dxo does.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting what you want, but you mention it as if photography couldn't be done otherwise or something.

That said, apologies if what I wrote seemed to aggressive, but read what you wrote too, and get informed on some of the real performances of some APS-C vs some FF's sensors.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (10 months ago)

@Manuel:
Thank you for the interesting paper! My conclusions:

1. You are right that on the one hand film has more DR potential than even FF sensors. On the other hand, the practical value of it is very limited (see their conclusion).
With digital cameras, exposure is more delicate. This is why most of them come with helpful tools to prevent blown highlights.

2. They also make clear that even a little compact can beat film regarding noise. Larger sensors are way ahead.

3. You say, FF was much better in DR than APS-C. Looking at the DXO numbers this is only true for older sensors. Currently, the best APS-C equal FF in DR with 14 stops.

You may be right that not all sensor developers focus on DR - megapixels and high ISO are still the focus. Maybe, we will see a DR race in the near future.
Till then: You better expose for the highlights! ;-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (10 months ago)

A Pentax Q takes quality photos (especially with the Standard Prime lens). It just depends upon what your needs are.

Sometimes an APS-C DSLR is a good idea. Sometimes an 80MP Phase One back is more appropriate.

Sometimes a Phase One back is a horrible idea (in low light, for most sports, or when size or cost is a problem). But in the right conditions it's unbeatable. Again, each tool has its place.

I believe Fujifilm (like everybody else) is seriously considering using a FF sensor in a mirrorless camera, it's just not something they can release yet. They're the only manufacturer that doesn't already have a decent lens collection for their primary mount, so they need to concentrate on that for another year or so.

"Cropped sensors will never equal full frame." This is just the point - it doesn't need to be equal. It only needs to meet the needs of the job at hand.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (10 months ago)

I find it somewhat laughable that Fujifilm have copied the "M" from Leica rangefinders at the same time as using the M for their most simple model which in fact should be for the X-Pro1.
So what is the next joke from Fujifilm? Probably that the jpegs with badly smudged foliage still remain unchanged from previous models in the X-series? At least i might guess so unless they've some other bad card to play on..
I could have considered the X20 if it not had been for that very irritating flaw.
At least they've got the tilt-lcd right with the X-M1. Hope to see options with low NR included as well and I might test one.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (10 months ago)

"Watercolor" foliage problem (a sight one at that with conservative sharpening) has been gone for a long time already...

7 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (10 months ago)

The quality of the JPGs I get from my X100 is amazing. I would almost use the word stunning. Very, very pleased with it.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

You what what's REALLY laughable is that Leica is denigrating their own name, with rubbish like the $1300 special edition 'G-Star RAW' D-Lux 6 and the $2850 Mini-M X Vario zoom compact". Leica is now a joke. Leica is the one that's "laughable".

3 upvotes
persiyan
By persiyan (10 months ago)

Leica wasn't the first manufacture to come up with that "rangefinder" design, have you seen cameras from the past century...

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Sounds like someone who hasn't bothered to check what the cameras can really do.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (10 months ago)

But the first 35 mm range finder WAS A LEICA ... designed to test 35 mm motion picture film

0 upvotes
day2012
By day2012 (10 months ago)

Are we to understand that you think that this camera is "laughable" because it's called the "XM-1"? Are you really trying to tell us that if it was called the "XN-1" you might take it seriously but because Leica have exclusive use of the letter "M", this camera is no good?

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (10 months ago)

Sounds like someone has a very big bank account and a very small brain...

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Walsh_uk
By Walsh_uk (10 months ago)

Bright sunny day outside and the camera becomes almost useless... Cant see a damn thing on my GF1 screen..

Shame there is no EVF option ... damn shame.

6 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (10 months ago)

There are two: X-E1 and X-Pro1...

11 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

You're right, the GF1's LCD isn't great in bright sunlight. But the X-M1 doesn't use the same LCD - things have progressed quite a lot since then. Modern screens have vastly better anti-reflective properties, and tilting screens tend to be easier to shield from direct sunlight than fixed ones too. The result? The X-M1 should be much, much easier to shoot in bright light than the GF1 (and I say this as a GF1 owner).

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

Hot-shoe EVF would be nice, as Olympus has done on their low-end PENs. No worries about cannibalizing higher-end models, because you give folk the option of a more expensive camera, or making their lower-end camera more expensive with an accessory.

3 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (10 months ago)

Small camera, big zoom, why Fuji don"t do like Sony ? A pancake 16-50 zoom? It's not the best zoom around, but it make the Nex a small package.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

The new zoom is pretty small and I rather have fuji do a quality optic and a Ho hum one.

3 upvotes
radissimo
By radissimo (10 months ago)

Seems that price/value is BETTER than Olympus E-p5 ,but NOT Sony NEX-5R...
Competition is good...

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Why not? Some people don't like the Sony interface. And the Sony Nex lenses aren't that very good overall, though sony is improving over time. There are pros and cons here, not absolutes.

0 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

Oly E-PL5 may actually be it's real competition. Annoyingly, you get one less control dial, but everything else is on par or better. The retro styling here plays tricks on the mind.

2 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (10 months ago)

"price/value is BETTER than Olympus E-p5"

A sucker punch, man. Literally every other camera, even from Oly, is better at price/value than than the E-P5.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@strikeroot- the overall image quality isn't and neither are the lenses until you get to the very high end of micro four thirds. You have to pay even more.

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (10 months ago)

@Raist3d - the PanyLeica 25/1.4 and Oly 60mm macro are cheaper than the Fuji alternatives: 35/1.4 and 60mm macro. Also, other m43 lenses like the Pany 20/1.7 and Oly 45/1.8 are very good and affordable.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@flip- That depends. With all the fuji sales going on you can get those lenses for cheaper. The other micro 4/3rds lenses you mention aren't bad and I agree, but the Fuji lenses are better than those. So you get what you pay for basically (again: not saying the lenses you mentioned are bad).

The point is, the statement "everything else on the EPl5 is on par or better" is not true.

0 upvotes
Davidgilmour
By Davidgilmour (10 months ago)

Look, it is the X-10 with interchangable lenses: http://camerasize.com/compare/#466,129

3 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (10 months ago)

The sensors are very different: 28mm diagonal in the XE-1 vs 11mm diagonal (2/3") in the X-10. Body size might be similar, but lens size (and thus low light ability) goes up with sensor size.

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (10 months ago)

Comparable to EOS M in dimension.

0 upvotes
Jon Lewis
By Jon Lewis (10 months ago)

And where is the viewfinder???

2 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (10 months ago)

I was suprised there wasn't touch screen.
My opinion is you rarely see viewfinder on "enrty-level" models. So I'm not suprised about the absent viewfinder

4 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (10 months ago)

I think that the price of the EP5 will drop considerably in a short time. The EP5 does take an optional VF ...a must for many photographers. The other thing with the EP5 is the great IS and all of the lenses to choose from. I own an OMD...and since the IQ is the same as the EP5 I will just stay put for now. Although if Fuji came out with a fast AF'ing EX-2 I would try it and and possibly switch camps....

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (10 months ago)

On the X-E1...

7 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (10 months ago)

I share the dpreview opinion.
"This makes for a pretty mouth-watering package that looks very close to the Olympus PEN E-P5 at a distinctly lower price point"

9 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

E-P5 is looking very overpriced now. Too bad for Oly, because they aren't making much money these days. I don't think they could really afford to lower the price on the E-P5...at least not this early. But at least m4/3 lenses are more affordable.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (10 months ago)

Well I still suspect there's air in the E-P5 price. X-M1 suspected price just confirms this to me, or that Fuji is gonna sell it with underprice.

1 upvote
Kirppu
By Kirppu (10 months ago)

According http://camerasize.com E-P5 and X-M1 looks like siblings with different insides.
http://j.mp/14umlq0

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Except for the fact that the E-P5 takes an EVF so it doesn't have to be used like a P&S with arms stretched out in front of your face. I guess DPR missed that small but significant detail.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@marike6 - millions of people shoot with rear LCDs every day, and they do it just fine. And they don't do it "with arms stretched out in front of [their] face." That kind of comment is just inane. It may be a different style of shooting than you might have grown up with, but it's a style of shooting that millions of people are perfectly comfortable with, and it's the fact that millions of people are perfectly comfortable with this style of shooting that these viewfinderless cameras can do so well. Don't knock it just because *you* can't handle this style of shooting. You're probably the kind of guy who wants a viewfinder for his smart phone, too (if you even own a smart phone, lol).

6 upvotes
Strikeroot
By Strikeroot (10 months ago)

I agree T3, but why not give marike6 the *option* of an attachable EVF as Oly has done?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

If you don't have a tiltable LCD, you DO have to shoot with your arms stretched out in front of you.

I can work fine without an VF, but if I have a choice, I will ALWAYS prefer to have one, just like the majority of enthusiasts and professionals in the world.

With a VF, the shooting stance with an additional point of contact of the camera against your face is far more stable, and shooting in brighter light is not an issue as it is with so many LCDs.

No need to huff and puff and act like I've insulted your best girl, just making a fairly obvious observation.

DPR was critical of the Pentax K-01 (among others) because it has no VF and no option to add one. Now all of the sudden we are supposed to believe the viewfinder-less X-M1 is comparable to mirrorless camera with EVFs? I'm not a fan of the E-P5, but in fairness it takes an EVF, which provides more functionality and a better shooting experience.

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (10 months ago)

@marike6 http://camerasize.com/compare/#466,285 (look at the top views and compare the size/volume/weight - lack of a viewfinder is more forgivable in the E-M1). The K-01 also did not have a flip screen, and had a lower quality and resolution screen than the E-M1. Means you can often get that extra point of contact and stability you described, bright sunlight shooting isn't as big an issue as with the K-01 and the disadvantages have been cancelled out by the features of the E-M1 that the K-01 doesn't have.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (10 months ago)

Obviously I mean X-M1 rather than E-M1. Oops.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@marike6 "If you don't have a tiltable LCD, you DO have to shoot with your arms stretched out in front of you."

But since the X-M1 does have one, then the case you mention is not valid in this discussion/comparison, right? There are pros and cons. On one end the Pen has that option but it pushes the price even higher up. At that point the X-E1 looks cheap and it has a built in view finder with you at all times.

The Pen 5 has the IBIS and speed, but the XM1 gives you better overall image quality, the much cheaper price and imho, a better designed interface and ergonomics.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (10 months ago)

I am liking the way fuji puts things together. Id really like to see an x-pro 2

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (10 months ago)

So View finder, shutter speed and aperture ring are swapped out for flippy screen, Mode switch and control dial. And Fuji muzzle sweeps the flanks of Panasonic and Olympus uFT and the APSC DLSR market by showing its serious about the system nature of its X cameras with an entry Model.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (10 months ago)

It's a tiny little (entry level) camera with an aps-c sensor & tilt screen. They've brought out 4 X cameras within a year, and the X-pro2 is just around the corner. What more do you expect? Your knocking them for putting out an entry level x model that doesn't have the features found on the higher end models? Lol.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Frankly, I'm glad they got rid of that anachronistic, space-hogging top shutter speed dial. It's more useful as a Mode dial. And I'm glad they turned the *dedicated* exposure comp dial into a multi-functional dial instead (it now controls shutter speed when you're in Manual, or exposure comp when you're in Aperture Priority). The un-marked dual dial system is better and more flexible, especially for people like myself who primarily shoot in aperture priority mode (we have little need for a dedicated shutter speed dial).

2 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (10 months ago)

It's priced a little high compared to entry level models from Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony... But it looks interesting nonetheless.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (10 months ago)

@ samhain
I'm not really knocking them, its not the camera I was expecting, I would have thought the X Pro 2 would have been next on the to-do list,
I think this camera takes the X system into subtlety different territory, Before the buyers were the "My other camera is a 5D" brigade, as a sort of sub Leica, the Smart guys Leica if you will. This product though takes them head on into the high-street and its rather nasty there at the moment with allot of discounting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
persiyan
By persiyan (10 months ago)

Technically this one has more dials than the others in the line up if paired with a lens with an aperture ring. You have two unmarked dials that will control exposure compensation and shutter speed just like before, and now you also have a mode dial.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

It may not be the camera you were wishing for but it is the camera Fuji was smart to put out to entice more users to its flavor of camera crack.
You may note that EVERY comment section on DPR is populated with a chorus of price whiners. This offers the market a price point that is very attractive yet I know that never really stops the whiners.

2 upvotes
Snap Judgements
By Snap Judgements (10 months ago)

This may replace my Ricoh GR V. I had better start reading the preview.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

You change your cameras like socks ...?

9 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (10 months ago)

Ok time to review the Fuji superzooms. I have seen so many turtlezoom reviews from competitors in the past 4 years. Some even just less than a month after release. So many wasted hours reviewing worthless iPhones I mean smartphones and tablets and plastic accessories.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Beautiful, compact APS-C ILC cameras like this make carrying around a big, fat, ugly, conventional DSLR as your everyday shooter less and less appealing.

5 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (10 months ago)

To poor folk with no money and weak arms, yes.

And seriously 17,00 messages? Wow.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

I'm a long time SLR/DSLR shooter, and I still use my DSLRs for work. But for my every-day-carry, I really hate taking my DSLR if I'm just around town or doing personal, casual shooting. These days, mirrorless is the way to go, at least for me. When you carry a DSLR, you stick out like a sore thumb...and frankly, look like a bit of a dweeb. Sure, for work, DSLRs are still my main equipment. But when you've been lugging around DSLR kit for years and years like I've been doing, the appeal of it wore off a long time ago. I'm sure many new DSLR users still feel kinda cool to be carrying around a DSLR. But for the rest of us, it's become old hat, and we know that we can get equally good images with much more compact, lighter, more unobtrusive and less noticable mirrorless gear. For all the money and arm/leg/back strength I've invested in all my years of carrying DSLR gear, I think I've earned the right to now use mirrorless gear, LOL! It's not a "macho" issue for us.

12 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

I think small, lightweight cameras are great and when they have the same quality and more importantly, same range of lenses as a full frame SLR, I'll stick all the big stuff on eBay. But how my camera looks as a fashion statement is of less than zero interest. In fact, a camera that looks not worth stealing would be ideal. It's like wanting people to notice your car.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@AbrasiveReducer - sorry, but people lugging around big DSLRs do look a bit ridiculous these days. And I speak as a lifelong SLR/DSLR user. It's kind of like if you pulled out a giant, thick, brick cell phone, compared to a slim, thin, modern iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.

I just think that it's good to have options, and to choose the right tool for the job. If you're shooting a wedding, bring out your DSLR gear. But if you're going out to Sunday lunch with the family, with a stop at the local park or mall, jeez, leave the DSLR at home. Take a compact MILC instead. Of course, not everyone has the means to own two different systems (DSLR plus MILC), but it's definitely a nice to have that option. I'm certainly glad I did it.

5 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

If I did not have to use a 5Dmk3 for my TS-E lenses for my business, I would be on mirror less like flies on poo.
I will be using MILCs for events and weddings but still can't use them for architecture.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Dames01
By Dames01 (10 months ago)

@Photomonkey
You should try mounting the TS-E lenses on the EOS M :-)

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

I use the 5D3 and TS lenses too, but I don't care what this looks like to anybody else. If I could have a black Nikon SP that did what the the 5D3 + 17 TS does, then I could make a fashion statement and still get the job done.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

Awesome dimensions to sensor size ratio for an EVIL cam.

3 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (10 months ago)

It is easy to put an APS-C sized sensor (width 23.6mm, less than one inch) in a body that is tiny, or even too small to operate easily. It is usually the size of the _lenses_ used with it that dictate total camera size. Except if one uses small wide-to-normal primes a lot of the time.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (10 months ago)

Given the distance to the APS-C sensor and the size of the XF lens what Fuji has achieved overall with the X system is a little miracle.

2 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

With that small 27mm pancake lens, it looks rather nice.
Very appealing little camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Total comments: 117