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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

@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

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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

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".

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?

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).

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.

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....

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.

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

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.

@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).

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

@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.

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.