Previous news story    Next news story

Rumors of inexpensive Fujifilm X-series camera hit the web

By dpreview staff on Sep 6, 2013 at 18:57 GMT

Leaked details of a possible inexpensive Fujifilm X-series cameras have hit the web today. The camera pictured in the leaked images is apparently named the X-A1, and appears to be built around a 16MP APS-C CMOS sensor with a more traditional Bayer filter instead of Fujifilm's unique X-Trans, but otherwise it looks pretty similar to the recently released X-M1.

Other leaked details mention a 3-inch tilting LCD, Wi-Fi, and 5.6 fps burst mode. Assuming the picture below isn't just an elaborate Photoshop job, it looks like the X-A1 will come in at least three colors: black, blue, and red.

The three colors of the rumored X-A1 in a leaked photograph, shown alongside a telephoto X-mount lens.

If the X-A1 becomes a reality, you can be sure that we'll be carrying full details, including official images and specs when the time comes. Watch this space.

Via: Engadget, Source: Photo Rumors

Comments

Total comments: 282
12
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (7 months ago)

I see Fuji is going the cheap zoom route also. The Zoom lens is the 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS. I hope this isn't a trend.

1 upvote
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (7 months ago)

No eye-level viewfinder? Me no interested! Holding a camera out, away from your body, especially with a large zoom lens, is just not as stable as holding it to your eye... Long live the X100, Xpro1 and XE1!!!

2 upvotes
Blanko00
By Blanko00 (7 months ago)

Would I buy it, bet your ****** **** I would.

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (7 months ago)

This camera should be built, It competes with all Nex,NX and m4/3s cameras without built in viewfinders. Using on the shelf parts and body and getting away from the Xtrans sensor issue that some people don't want to deal with. Should be put on the market as cheap as possible with the 16-50 lens.If you had this camera with the 27mm pancake what aftermarket OVF would you put on the hotshoe?

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (7 months ago)

The X-trans issue affects RAW not jpeg. This camera is squarely aimed at jpeg shooters; who also won't be in so much need of an EVF/OVF.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (7 months ago)

It is time to start lowering the price of the lenses, since they will produce more, or is it a utopia?
I doubt that many prospective buyers will buy lenses, or have more lenses than what comes included in the starter kit. Buying a $500 body, and then buying a $1000 or $1500 lens?uhmmm
The concept of sales of cameras starts to be the same concept of selling printers.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

camera mounts are handcuffs on slaves,
ropes on livestocks,
traps for prey,
...
from makers point of view.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
gartblaum
By gartblaum (7 months ago)

Hope there will be a 'universal' mount with standardized interfaces someday, like a USB port, that is open to all the camera and lens manufacturers....

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (7 months ago)

Pay less -- get no blooming. Sounds fair.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (7 months ago)

Now, there is a good move! It has been painful to watch the RAW conversion saga of X Trans images. This could be a solid performer without dramas.

0 upvotes
Arn
By Arn (7 months ago)

Yeah, Fuji stumbled badly with X-trans RAW in the beginning. But I think Fuji finally got the RAW conversion of Lightroom and Photoshop (ACR) working as it should and these days X-trans images are superb also in RAW, even through ACR. Fuji RAW should stand up well to the competion, especially at high ISOs. Correct?

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (7 months ago)

X-trans (fats) will kill you.

Just a note for the marketing kittens at Fuji.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I don't think X-trans is good but RAW conversion should not be used as a reason against it.

it will still be an issue even if X-trans is a great invention that bring us to a new world of higher performance, and it will remain an issue until all Bayer and Foveon guys can catch up.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (7 months ago)

This is pathetic. DPReview used to chastise websites for leaking news & rumors etc. And now, what do we see? DPReview itself is posting rumors.

They must be desperately trying to generate more web traffic. Let me give DPReview a piece of advice: post MORE timely reviews of cameras and lenses if you want to generate more traffic.

Very sad to see DPReview in its current state.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

Em, DPR have posted links to loads of rumours, and they've all turned out to be correct. I think they already had those cameras to play with under NDA, so to get around that they just link to a rumour posted on another site that they know is correct because they already have the camera.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

maybe DPReview want to be a "one stop solution" for everything from high quality reviews to rubbish rumors.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

yabokkie, name a rumour that DPR published that turned out to be false.

Comment edited 6 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Almeida
By Almeida (7 months ago)

Dpreview only posts rumors they know are correct. How do they know? Because they have a hands on preview ready to publish.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it's tricky. it's may not be rubbish but potentially harmful but you should know that's not the point I'm making.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

How would it be harmful?

0 upvotes
Gryfster
By Gryfster (7 months ago)

I was going to buy an X-series X-Pro1. I mean who wouldn't love the classical style, the wonderful lenses with a detent aperture ring, the slow autofocus that I wouldn't use because of the wonderful split prism manual focus aid and the brilliant film effects.

Then I looked in ny closet and pulled out my Canon XE-1 and saved myself 2 grand.

1 upvote
Gryfster
By Gryfster (7 months ago)

oops AE-1

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

Until you spend 2k on film and developing ;)

4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (7 months ago)

why would you even want an xtrans sensor. fuji has fooled around with non traditional sensors and they are yet to do anything worthwhile with it. the idea of xtrans was that you would not need a low pass filter. so is it sharper than any camera that does have a low pass filter. nope. Are folks with d800e or d7000 or ricoh GRs having much trouble with moire. not really. so what is the point to make a sensor that is not easily compatible with 3rd party software. infact it didnt even work well with the silkypix THAT SHIPPED WITH THE CAMERA. and though adobe has updated there xtrans i still doubt its handled as well as the bayer raw files produced by 99% of other cameras

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

like others who think that there's no RAW support for the X-trans, you're about 6 months behind times. Try reading the myriad reviews there are all over the Internet now for Cap1, Lightroom, Aperture, Iridient Developer, and others. In fact, have a look at fuji rumors dot com and other fuji x-specific sites so you can get up to speed on this before posting more outdated comments about something that is no longer an issue.

13 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (7 months ago)

I recognized that adobe had updated i still doubt it is as good as the processing for the sensor in 90 percent of cameras. they also absolutely did ship the camera with a version of silkypix that did butcher the files witch is beyond embarrassing. also it still stands that they have shown no reason to to even have these sensors

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

So you are against innovation is sensor design? Interesting.

Do note however that the X Trans sensor has close to the best, if not the best high ISO capability of any APS-C sensor ever created.

And very few crop sensor cameras have IQ as beautiful as these:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf23mmf14_r/sample_images/]

RAW support has been improving for months to the point that it's not an issue anymore at all.

8 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (7 months ago)

i am for innovation that works. fuji has been pretty silly.

anyway i am just amused by fujis saying oh well the cheap camera wont have xtrans. as if that means anything valuable. it just doesnt seem to. there a litte too proud of this innovation.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Your opinion doesn't hold up to thousands of satisfied x-trans users. We all get you don't like the product so move on to another thread where you know a bit about the topic.

3 upvotes
AndreaV
By AndreaV (7 months ago)

Just a question, Kodachrome200: have you recently used a camera with xtran sensor? I use a x-pro1 with lightroom and the quality I get now is definitely at least on par with the best bayer sensor out there: colors are great, images super sharp and low iso performaces outstanding.

0 upvotes
Alexis D
By Alexis D (7 months ago)

No x-tran? Forget it. Fuji is good only impressive because of that sensor.

4 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Yeah because the X100 was really crap. Also their lenses and handling are crap.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

Fujinon lenses are okay, standard or good ones.
only they cannot live up to the current unreasonable prices,
2, 3, or over 4 times more expensive than similar SLR ones:

XF 14/2.8, worths 300, price 900 US,
XF 18/2, worths 270, price 600,
XF 23/1.4, worths 370, price 850,
XF 27/2.8, worths 100, price 450,
XF 35/1.4, worths 180, price 600,
XF 56/1.2, worths 490, price n/a,
XF 60/2.4, worths 400, price 650,

the worths are calculated from similar 35mm format lenses (AOV, aperture) from Canon and Nikon, Sigma/Tamron/Cosina prices are also considered.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (7 months ago)

how do you arrive at your worth prices. slr lenses arent that cheap?

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

Yabokkie stop trolling, you know you can't just calculate how much a lens should cost by measuring the aperture size, /you/ said so yourself about that Canon 55-250 you liked.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> slr lenses arent that cheap

that's right. the differences come from the fact that their apertures usually are not the same so we cannot value an XF lens the same as the reference lens or lenses.

for example, the rumored XF 56/1.2 will be an 85/1.8 equivalent, can do about the same job and should worth the same as, say AF-S 85/1.8G, which is sold for USD 497.

but the calc gives a little bit different number
estimated value = (56/1.2)^2 / (85/1.8)^2 * 497 = 485.4
(I rounded all results to the nearest 10 dollar numbers)

actually either will be good for the error will be more than the difference between them. and I could buy a lens 30% higher if I like it.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

maybe 50% higher but a bell will ring and I may likely go to one of the "reference lenses." all brands mean dirt to me (red dot dirt, blue square dirt, white text dirt ...)

btw, I used to love Kodachrome 25.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

dpreview can we please get a feature to gray out comments from certain users, like yabokkie.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

@M Jesper,
thanks for reading. you don't have to though.
thanks again.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

Hey yabokkie did you calculate the sharpness of the 56mm f1.2 compared to the 85mm f1.8? Or have you forgotten that time you said that you cared about image quality?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

@Andy Crowe,
if you have an idea about how sharpness can contribute to the price based on something real (like statistics of the current and historical lens prices), we can talk and add that to the calculation.

as I said, lens price is affected by a lot of factors a large chunk of it in the distribution/marketing but aperture area is by far the most influencing factor with a simple formula as I listed above.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Like I said before, just a guy with a calculator.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

the calculator goes on:

an example of lenses with quite different aperture areas:
Oly mZD45/1.8, with reference to Nikon 85/1.8G,
estimated value = (45/1.8)^2 / (85/1.8)^2 * 497 = 140
but it's sold for 350 US.

or if we think a 50/1.8 on APS-C will work similar
estimated value = (45/1.8)^2 / (50/1.8)^2 * 217 = 180
in accordance with 140 above
(0.34 stops more expensive with better peripheral qualities)
underscoring the unreasonable price of 350.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

> if you have an idea about how sharpness can contribute to the price based on something real (like statistics of the current and historical lens prices), we can talk and add that to the calculation.

How about this:
Sigma 50mm f1.4 - £360. Canon 50mm f1.4 - £280.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=23,24&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> How about this

(1)
are you saying Sigma 50/1.4 on 35mm format should worth about 30% more than Canon 50/1.4 on APS-C?

how did you get that?
how the sharpness is involved in the calculation?

(2)
then I realized 50/1.8 on APS-C may complicate the discussion so shall we concentrate on similar lenses first? we can come back to cropped usage later.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

> or if we think a 50/1.8 on APS-C will work similar
estimated value = (45/1.8)^2 / (50/1.8)^2 * 217 = 180
in accordance with 140 above
(0.34 stops more expensive with better peripheral qualities)
underscoring the unreasonable price of 350.

But you're still ignoring image quality. Don't you care about image quality anymore? Lets see, the DxOMark score for the 50mm f1.8 on APS is 16, the score for the 45mm f1.8 is 23. Therefore

(45/1.8)^2 / (50/1.8)^2 * 217 * (23^2 / 16^2) = 363

So clearly the 45mm f1.8 is exactly the right price.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

> are you saying Sigma 50/1.4 on 35mm format should worth about 30% more than Canon 50/1.4 on APS-C?
> how did you get that?
> how the sharpness is involved in the calculation?

Sorry the url didn't update when I changed camera, the same applies 35mm to 35mm and APS to APS, the Sigma is sharper in all configurations.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=23,25&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

for the formula in your first post, please refer to (2) of my post above it. 50/1.8 is not used as designed and it's value should be halved in such a setup.

I'd not use DxOMark's final score for I don't know how it's computed. please teach me if you happen to know.

actually if you really want to know, lens performance has very weak correlation with price. primes from different makers performe quite similar and similar zooms at similar prices may perform very differently.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

> actually if you really want to know, lens performance has very weak correlation with price

Yet here are two lenses (Sigma and Canon) with the same focal length and the same aperture, yet the more expensive one performs better.

Here's another one:
Canon 35mm f2. Price $850. DxO score 33
Nikon 35mm f2. Price $365 . DxO score 22

It's pretty clear that there are many cases were a company has invested in creating a more expensive but better quality lens, thus lens price is not just the aperture unless your only interest is trolling and not photography.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it's pointless to use DxOMark score without knowing what it is. also there is an issue that lenses tested on different cameras cannot be compared directly.

the new 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses are of far better qualities at about the same prices as the previous version. same for super tele primes.

Canon's new 35/2 IS is an outlier at 599 but it's an interesting topic that makers try to change rail sometimes. the optical quality of 70-200/2.8L IS and non-IS versions are indistinguishable but they are on totally different rails of prices.

I'd really appreciate if you could shed light on the topic.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

I'm just shedding light on how silly calculating lens price with nothing but the aperture dimensions is. Seriously, stop trolling. I mean, you are the only user I've ever seen DPR actually delete comments from, you're that bad.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

the price calc got errors as all statistical methods do. it may be called simple stupid but works. I do know something to make it more accurate but also problems because a lot of things I don't know and it's not science as economics.

keep your cool. hate will bring us nowhere but get lost.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

but yabokkie as you can see trying to claim all lenses should cost the same as the cheapest Canikon DSLR lenses is silly if you consider that some lenses are considerably better optical quality than others even given identical focal lengths and f numbers.

Jumping into every news article about a system you don't like with claims that the lenses are all rip-offs because, regardless of actual image quality, they're more expensive than whichever cheap low-grade FF lens you've found is just silly trolling, I know you're capable of making proper informed arguments so why still troll?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I also feel the need to quantify lens quality as you do. but I cannot find any clear trend in the data. sometimes I give higher value to better peripheral qualities if there is no aspherical element (limited usage with large error). also I want to punish aspherical elements because new technologies enable higher quality at lower cost. again no success.

> the cheapest Canikon DSLR lenses
as you know I don't favor any brand and the rules don't favor any brand. for what reason you should blame other makers' lenses cheap?

without any data, we can give subjective bonus to higher qualities on top of aperture size, maybe more than one stop that we can debate.

with known error from different camera bodies, I'd like to try data from lensrentals.com but no result yet. the qualities of Canikon lenses are quite good. some test sites give them lower scores because they use lenses not serviced for long time. also, people don't understand PH canot be used when compare different aspect ratios.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CortoPA
By CortoPA (7 months ago)

Good move from Fuji.

Of course now all the Fuji Hipsters will be upset that the "Leicaness" is lost...

Hey, Maybe Fuji will put a big red circle with an F in the middle of it on their top of the line cameras so as to make sure the people craving "Pro" recognition can still get it.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

isn't Lieca a loser?

but they started as a cheap alternative to the 70mm format which made them great succuess.

0 upvotes
newe
By newe (7 months ago)

Looks aweful...would prefer Nikon D400

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Yeah you said it! I was definitely comparing this to the D400 as well, they are SO similar, I mean if only Fujifilm would stop wasting resources on making this crap so that Nikon can build the D400 instead! Bloody Fuji.

1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

maybe "newe" means "newe to cameras in general".

0 upvotes
MarshallG
By MarshallG (7 months ago)

My first camera was a Fujica SLR, which I bought in 1978 for $120. Fuji has been a low-end camera maker for a very long time, and I think it's fantastic that they've busted out with cameras that beat the offerings of Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Sony/Leica. In this day and age, it's a very impressive feat of engineering and understanding the customer. I'd love to buy a cost-reduced Fuji that keeps enough of the enthusiast features for serious photography. This model might do, if they offer some kind of viewfinder option.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

They do, wow! Put a viewfinder in the hotshoe and off you trot. Hell you don't even have to buy a Fujifilm branded one - Amazing!

1 upvote
pavi1
By pavi1 (7 months ago)

And what info is displayed in that hot shoe view finder? That's what I thought. And then when you want to use hot shoe for cord or flash you are back to arms length and reading glasses to take a picture. Do people in Japan not loose their close range vision when they turn 40 like we do in the USA?

1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Marshall -- as abort said you can get a 3rd party VF for the hotshoe. If you want all the shooting data, you'll need to spend more and opt for the XE-1, or if you want a good compact with EVF with a 2/3" sensor opt for the X20.

1 upvote
glacierpete
By glacierpete (7 months ago)

Fuji has decades of experience producing large format and medium format PRO lenses and a huge spectrum of medium format film cameras, and it was one of the biggest manufacturers of film.

Fujifilm GA645Z, Fuji GSW690 or FUJI GX680 III PROFESSIONAL to name a few.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

> This model might do, if they offer some kind of viewfinder option.

I think the camera you are looking for is probably the Fuji X-E1

1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (7 months ago)

Hey dpreview, maybe you should do a few marketing and business articles to help inform some of the clueless people on this site who don't know how manufacturers camera product lines work.

0 upvotes
stuartgolden
By stuartgolden (7 months ago)

This is CLEARLY a Photoshop - take a peek: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3543560

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Yes, photoshopped and then put on the Fujifilm website... Must be fake!

1 upvote
Cane
By Cane (7 months ago)

Reading through these comments is lol entertainment, but also makes me sad for the human race.

7 upvotes
Alan Brown
By Alan Brown (7 months ago)

agree.. people can be rude anonymously in their own space. (not all comments here obviously)

It's protected, in their mind, by the convention of 'free speech'. This was not the intention of its use but more of real threats to personal freedoms.. Political 'cover ups' 'whistle blowing on company's that defraud clients. etc etc.

being able to curse someone or something in public, pales into insignificance by comparison

3 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (7 months ago)

All of this from a red and blue camera?

What makes me sad for the human race is disease, poverty, war. Lighthearted discussions about camera rumors taking place on a photography website are no big deal.

3 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (7 months ago)

Also it is the EXRll processor.

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (7 months ago)

Origanaly leaked on Czech site. Whall I don't get it said compatible with all A lens,does that mean it can mount A lens and X lens.

0 upvotes
Joe Talks Photo Gear
By Joe Talks Photo Gear (7 months ago)

DPR posting rumors is supremely lame. Causes me to wonder whether if it were Nikon or Canon they would have to rely on other unsubstantiated sources. Did I say lame?

4 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (7 months ago)

It's part of marketing, hype, excitement. Nothing lame about it; it's business. And the rumour, for dpreview to have published this, is likely somewhat more than just a rumour. It's almost certainly a deliberate 'leak' from fuji for the purposes above. Dpreview know that and are wanting to join in to the excitement generation machine as it helps them also. I really don't believe for a second that this is a mere rumour or unsubstantiated leak. That really would be lame. Dpreview were likely told directly by a non-authoratitive source (officially unauthorised junior in the marketing or engineering dept) that was told by his bosses at Fuji what to say and pics to give.

The good thing about it from fuji's perspective is that they can also fiddle the specs or even drop the idea having got a bit of feedback on the 'leaked' models.

It's pure business.

6 upvotes
Joe Talks Photo Gear
By Joe Talks Photo Gear (7 months ago)

That thought process is entirely conjecture. Like I said, lame. Let's agree to disagree.

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (7 months ago)

I don't think so. That's how modern business operates: no conjecture at all.

At the very most we can say of your view that dpreview are repeating mere rumour, is presumption. In a business context, and dpreview is a business, it's not reasonable to make such an assumption.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

People -- look around. DP isn't the only source repeating this info -- it's everywhere. And since every THING needs to start SOMEWHERE, unless you're WHERE the thing is started WHEN it's started you'll always be seeing a redundant report.

ALSO -- this is a PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR website Joe Talks Photo Gear -- just like your name suggests. Of all people I would think that Joe Talks Photo Gear would be the last person to have a problem with DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW posting a leak or rumor about PHOTOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT.

Maybe Joe ONLY Talks Photo Gear when no one else has????

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (7 months ago)

No X-trans is good move.

6 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (7 months ago)

Why?

4 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (7 months ago)

I guess we'll see, won't we? This will really allow us to see whether X-Trans gives any substantive benefit versus Bayer. Game on!

0 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (7 months ago)

I'm getting gorgeous resuls from XTrans.

7 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (7 months ago)

Me too, Dave. I'm still interested in the head-to-head. I suspect Fuji's decision to go with the X-Trans will be vindicated.

5 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

Rumors about the X-A1 have already been posted in May, followed by correct description (entry-level, no-viewfinder, no-x-trans-sensor) in July, on the usual rumor sites. dpreview doesn't do itself a favor by suddenly starting to post old news as "have hit the web today". Especially if there's nothing at all about a load of even more interesting rumors which keep being published elsewhere, some people already mentioned the E-M1, and the more so since even the regular previews and reviews usually are too late to still be interesting for enthusiasts and early adopters, people who used to regard dpreview high for the timeliness of their reports in its early years.

18 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

DPR don't get involved in rumors. This was a press release inadvertently posted on a Fujifilm website - there is a difference.

4 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (7 months ago)

Semantics...

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

That's an interesting statement, given that the article's headline is "rumors of camera hit the web". And, actually, many rumors do originate in material leaked inadvertently or even not-so-inadvertently from the manufacturer, so, no, there is no difference at all. Even if the material really was posted on a Fujifilm website, a claim I haven't seen allusions to anywhere yet.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

In one instance it was accidentally posted on the official site and the other is 'claims' of being leaked (and probably were but there are plenty if others that aren't) DPR tends to post on the ones that have been a clear leak from an official source. In the end, DPR can post whatever the hell they want, but I agree with their methods of only publishing real leaks.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

Even if it was intelligent to only post leaks of that kind, which I don't think it is, it is still stupid to call it news after the information has been out for months. And, after all, those rumor sites do tend to publish quite reliable information these days, whether it comes from official sources or not.

Fact is, dpreview won't become more attractive by posting old news, when it's more reviews, and more timely ones at that, that people are missing.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

There are a lot of elitists snobs who will turn their noses up at this camera, but Fuji is doing the right thing. Like it or not, pricing is very, very important. Sure, you can have high end models at higher price points, but you also have to have lower end models that will typically sell much better thanks to their lower price point. For every Canon 1DX that Canon sells, they probably sell a couple hundred Canon Rebels, if not more. These lower-end cameras end up being the bread-and-butter cameras in a brand's product line. So if you want a company like Fuji to stay in business and keep making premium bodies, you should really not put up a stink over them introducing a lower-end body that will probably sell very well thanks to its attractive looks and low pricing. Plus, it just makes you sound like a whiny elitist who is naive to the realities of business.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

In principle, you're right, but to achieve what Canon does with their Rebels, Fuji would have to create a full-featured entry-level model to sell as cheap as a Rebel does, and, sorry, full-featured would have to include a viewfinder. If it doesn't, many people will simply continue buying the Rebels, not the Fujis.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Hubertus: at the very least compare apples to apples. The XA1 is a mirrorless ILC - not a DSLR. Anyone who doesn't mind the added bulk and weight of a DSLR can get more for their money buying cameras like rebels and nikon d3xxx, d5xxx, etc. I don't think T3 was implying that fuji should or could be expected to achieve canons sales numbers for DSLRs.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

A lot of people upgrading from P&S cameras may not care about an eye level viewfinder. I've seen plenty of people shooting entry level DSLRs at arms-length using the rear LCD - many actually seem to prefer it that way.

Anyway it may have a detachble EVF as an option - or put a focusing hood on the LCD and manual focus will be much like focusing a TLR. If it has focus peaking, which almost everyt DSLR lacks, that should be easy

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

@Hubertus Bigend - most every entry-level model has some compromise or another, and these are typically compromises that lower-end, price-conscious consumers are willing to accept, or are not bothered by, because they are getting a more affordable price. In the case of the X-A1, it's a mirrorless camera competing in the mirrorless segment, and there are *plenty* of mirrorless cameras without a viewfinder! They are obviously too different markets, MILC and DSLR. It's like comparing the tablet market to the laptop market, and complaining that tablets aren't as "full featured" as a laptop because it doesn't have a physical keyboard, larger storage, faster processor for more power, etc. It doesn't matter because they are two different markets, tablets and laptops. People who buy tablets compare against other tablets, people who buy laptops compare against other laptops. Likewise, you do the same with MILCs and with DSLRs. You need to compare apples to apples.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (7 months ago)

@Hubertus Here, I fixed your statement for you.

"In principle, you're right, but to achieve what Canon does with their Rebels, Fuji would have to create a full-featured entry-level model to sell as cheap as a Rebel does, and, sorry, full-featured would have to include a viewfinder ****IN MY OPINION***. If it doesn't, many people will simply continue buying the Rebels, not the Fujis."

No need to thank me :)

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

I find it funny Pana & Olympus try to introduce more pricey models (alongside the cheaper ones they've always had).

Fuji does the opposite, starts off with a pricey mirrorless camera then try to strip it more and more down to barebones with each new release.

1 upvote
llamacide
By llamacide (7 months ago)

I agree....
Remember the VW Phaeton? Not many do but it was VW luxury car made for a few years (based on the Audi A8L). $100,00.00 plus price tag for a VW... It didn't sell well... likely because folks didn't associate VW with a luxury car at that price... at the same time Mercedes started selling the C230... their first entry level supercharged 4cly. priced below 30,000.00 It sold well.

bottom line... its easier to sell luxury first and offer an affordable entry model later on to get new customers in your brand based on your reputation, and let them buy up... Harder to offer cheap and expect to sell them on your 'luxury' brand later on without a bit of skepticism... My 2 cents.

6 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Erin, Panasonic started with the G1 and GF1 and then continued to go 'down market' from there with the GF2, GF3 etc. Olympus started with the E-P1 and continued to go downmarket from there with first the E-PL series and then the E-PM series. It wasn't until much later that they started going up, three generations in fact before they released a model with viewfinder etc and moved 'up market'.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Yes Nikon became famous because of cameras like the SP, F and F2 which were aimed at professional photojournalists. Then came the first Nikkormats which were sort of semi-pro or enthusiast level in their time. It took Nikon years to start selling entry- level or consumer cameras and they sold - and their successors continue to sell- because of the reputation established by their "pro" models.

1 upvote
Vlad S
By Vlad S (7 months ago)

Panasonic and Olympus are not "trying," they are responding to demand for higher grade hardware. This demand typically comes from advanced DSLR owners who bought into µ4/3 as a second system, but later thought that it could become their only system if the pro- grade features were implemented.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (7 months ago)

"Panasonic started with the G1 and GF1 and then continued to go 'down market' "
I dont think this comparison is quite fair, as these models were never the premium models like the Fuji X that set bench marks for build quality, look, and IQ. Olympus OMD can reverse that trend b/c it has a wonderful sensor. It is hard to get people excited to pay more than $1000 to have a pro micro4/3 body when the sensor is evidently inferior to those of the APS-C world, such as Fuji and SONY. I thus agree that it is much easier to sell cheaper models to expand market share when the brand is already perceived to be desirable.

2 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (7 months ago)

The cheap bayer camera will draw people in, the fantastic lenses and UI will draw people to upgrade to the better X-Trans bodies. It's not something I'd be totally proud of, but I do absolutely see the logic behind the A1.

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (7 months ago)

What's the point if Fujifilm is not going to use their better technology sensor?

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

Obviously, the point is to hit a certain price point. It's amazing that people are so dismissive of how important pricing is. The latest and best technology typically costs more than the older, not-as-good technology, even if the older technology is still plenty good enough for many budget-minded buyers. But then, you get some people who simply demand the best, latest technology no matter what the cost...then they complain about the cost!

6 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

So erm, why do Nikon make cameras that don't include the 36MP AA-less sensor of the D800E? Hell they even sell two identical models with different sensor.

But no-no they are doing it all wrong! 36MP AA-less from Coolpix to 1 to Dxxxx Etc!

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (7 months ago)

There's nothing wrong with making cheaper products but you are both missing the branding discrepancy.

0 upvotes
ljclark
By ljclark (7 months ago)

The point? Because Fuji is beginning to get some wider brand recognition, but this target group is very price sensitive. Most users will have one print made per every 1,000 shots (if that), and in that environment the X-Trans sensor is more of a distraction than a feature.

Fuji hasn't as many cards to play as Nikon and Canon, but I wouldn't call this a bluff. There is still risk due to the decline low-end camera sales due to competition from smart phones. I'm not sure anyone knows where the cut-off point is -- the bottom of the mirrorless market vs. the upper range of the smart phones (where smart phones can still take a bite out of camera sales).

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

@Basalite - so is there a "branding discrepancy" when Canon sells a 1DX, and also sells a Rebel SL1? Is there a "branding discrepancy" when Leica sells an M9, and also a Leica D-Lux compact digicam? No, it's still the same brand, but they just sell a broader range of products in order to make enough money to stay in business. It's called diversification, and leveraging your brand to target a wider range of buyers...again, to make enough money to stay in business. Stop being so naive and idealistic.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (7 months ago)

Ijclark and T3 you both misunderstand the simple point I was making. The clue is in the "X." :)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

@Basalite - no, you're just attaching your own narrow bias of what "X" means. An idealistic, narrow, exclusive idea of "X". The reality is that Fuji wants to sell cameras, needs to sell cameras, and in the "X" series of cameras they've established a certain look and style that many people find appealing, and many people even buy the "X" bodies specifically because they find this particular style, look, and aesthetic appealing in a camera body. So what's so wrong about offering a lower-priced camera body so that more people can afford it? Oh, because you *don't* want more people to be able to afford it! Is that why you feel so threatened and insecure about Fuji broadening the "X" cameras to a wider audience? Well, that's rather selfish of you, don't you think?

0 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (7 months ago)

I saw ths information over a week ago all over the web. What is DPReview.....last on the totem pole for news

4 upvotes
Torch
By Torch (7 months ago)

Inert gas and inert mind Fuji. X camera without X-trans? Go FAIL! Who needs your cam without low light and sharpness? Prepared for price wars with Samsug and Nikon? I'll stick with EXF2 & P7700 with higher quality construction on the controls.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Does this even make sense? Comparing a non-X-Trans APS-C sensor saying it fails in low light... Compared to a Samsung 'EXF2' (whatever that is) and a P7700? Are you joking? The more I come on here the more I realize that people really don't have a clue.

12 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

Sounds like you're the one with the inert mind, especially if you think that anything that doesn't have X-Trans isn't capable of good low light and sharpness. Your mind is also inert if you don't think that pricing is really important. Lower priced cameras sell better. The best selling DSLRs are typically the entry-level bodies like Canon Rebels. Why? Well, it's not because they have superior performance. It's because of pricing.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Why should it be poor in low light because it soesn't have an X-Trans sensor? The X-100 and other non-Fuji cameras APS-C cameras don't and they are fine.

At least users shouldn't encounter problems processing RAW files.

1 upvote
ezradja
By ezradja (7 months ago)

Fuji can do this in 500USD range price, why Canon and Nikon can't?

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Do what exactly? Try to be a little more specific than 'this'.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Ez, You must not have heard of the nikon 1. It's been done.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Nikon 1 had a rather small sensor compared to this camera - and I think the launch price for the J1 was $550 - and £550 in the USA. The V1 considerably higher.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

Probably this camera with Bayer sensor will have better color reproduction than all transes. But still no grip, and the same poor 16-50 lens, probably the same poor AF. It can't compete against other mirrorless unless they drop the price to under $400.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Oh dear. Another 'penny pincher' who won't buy any of them because they aren't up to snuff.

Lets see -

2-dials
WiFi
Tilt screen
APS-C sensor
5.6fps
Hotshoe
Supposedly around the $500 mark

Show me something else that is better in the mirrorless market in that price bracket? Can't? Oh what a pity.

Yeah middle of the road AF, big deal.

5 upvotes
Parappaman
By Parappaman (7 months ago)

People always trend to forget about Samsung NX cams. I got a brand new NX210 with two zooms and the delicious 30mm prime for that 500 bucks equivalent...

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

'What you can pick it up for on clearance because nobody else was buying them' is hardly the same as the original price set by manufacturer. NX210 was $899. I'm sure by the time this is in the bargain bin it will be cheap as well.

I bought a Nikon D1 for $70 in 2001. Does that make all cameras expensive or overpriced?

1 upvote
ConanFuji
By ConanFuji (7 months ago)

Someone tell these jokers from Fuji it's been 4 years since they keep cranking out 16Mp cameras. Sony has produced a 20Mp smartphone and Fujifilm is going to die a quick painful death.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Really? And we wonder why the megapixel race continues....

*sigh*

19 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

I'd say from your avatar you have mega-problems.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Actually 16mp turns out to be rather good on APS-C. Just the same pixel density as Nikon's full frame D800.

Anyway how many users of this camera do you expect to be making 36 inch prints?

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

16mp is fine for an APS-C camera.

Sony's current NEX3N - which this will be competing against - has a 16mp sensor too.

Fuji's prime lenses are generally as good as the Sony-Zeiss prime lenses for the NEX - at a fraction of the price.

Their JPGs are also nice - which is important in an entry level camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

I love all the incessant whining about the lack of viewfinders on low end cameras! First up there are more models with VF's in the lineup than ones without. Secondly, see that little hotshoe? Yeah you can stick any optical viewfinder you like in there, like they've been doing for a century. What you are really whining about is how you've been spoilt by the advantages of TTL viewfinder and viewfinders with informational overlays. Nobody 'needs' that 'junk'. A viewfinder if for composing, which you can do by slapping a favorite viewfinder of choice on top.

You are all* just babies needing little baby aids to be a 'photographer'.

*those that whinge and complain that is.

10 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (7 months ago)

Agree 100%. And the whiners will never buy any cameras. All hot air.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Indeed. There is a post down there somewhere about 'will these jokers ever learn that we want viewfinders' or some such, referring to their D300... As if that was the last camera to come with a viewfinder.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

You are missing the point. Why does, every good, new, and progressive benefit, have to take about three steps back; in other known areas? IP BS? We need to stop that.

I don't know, all there is to know; but you should listen to folks; even if you disagree with them. You might actually learn something, from discussions.

Of course, anyone can post in here, and that includes, the folks working with Sony, Fuji, and Canikon, Oly, Pany, Penny-Tax, etc...

All we really have here, is reason, including logic; about the facts. We can't verify anyone’s credibility here. You know; at some point, you can only go on, with the thing, as best you understand them. There are people here who bleed photography, and it's not the manufacturers, and the folks who bought their sob stories, about selling at a loss. LOL. Wake up! Any company selling units WORLD-WIDE, is doing quite well, trust me. But hey, first thing, that folks do is over-spend, and you know what? That's bad. It's not OK; to be least bad.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Pythagoras
By Pythagoras (7 months ago)

can someone explain to me the difference between whining and whinging? how do you even pronounce whinging?

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

@ neodp - I have no idea what you are talking about.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

@Pythagoras

whinge = To whine or complain in an annoying manner. Almost like the Yiddish "kvetch"

Austrailians call complaining Brits "whinging poms"

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Thanks CFynn.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

@Abortabort. That's my point. ;)

Which point can't you read? IP = "intellectual Property". AKA the stupid patenting of IDEAS. Is this why real photographic benefits are left out; with all the other good, and new benefits? Else, is it just purposely refusing to put them ALL TOGETHER! Both? BTW,...that's good-enough-excellent (not absolute perfection), and it's not "good enough"-crappy, It's about balanced benefits, and that includes the price(s). Total system prices. IQ, speeds, carry-able size, usability, and Price. Why is that difficult to grasp?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

what the hell are you talking about

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (7 months ago)

Interesting - X series would be much more interesting to me with 16-20mp Bayer sensor without AA and IBIS - the lens range is really developing nicely.

1 upvote
limlh
By limlh (7 months ago)

Better to have it with the new 20mp sensor from Sony A3000. Then X-E2 then come late in 2014 with the new organic sensor.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Why? The 'new' 20MP sensor isn't as good as the 'old' 16MP.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (7 months ago)

I hope the image quality still good. and I hope Fuji did not make mistake on the spec

0 upvotes
reedjecd
By reedjecd (7 months ago)

Xpro2 ff 24 megs Leica M mount, that's what's needed, and with tiltable screen
and mechanical links, none of that ridiculous "by wire junk "
The Xpro1 which I have is a fantastic sensor with a very poorly executed camera + 35mm and 18mm lens hood designed by a donkey on steroids

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

@reedjecd

Why an oudated Leica M-mount? You would loose autofocus which wouldn't make it saleable to most users.

Anyway Fuji sell a good adapter for M-mount lenses

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (7 months ago)

If this is true, I am glad they are doing it. X-Trans is a nice concept, but test shots prove it loses out in detail because of the big blocks of green grouped together. It is also very expensive!

Owner of an NX20, I've been eyeing Fuji for a while, with it's superior kit lenses - and generally very nice lens lineup. What kept me from going to Fuji is the sensor and the very high prices of their cameras - and to a lesser extent, the much larger sizes of the cameras as well (which merely shows them as being on a budget when it comes to producing VLSI chips that would save lots of real-estate on their circuit boards).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it depends on the color. good for black-white test chart, and it saves money for no LPF, a major driving factor behind X-Trans.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

@yabokkie

Omitting the low pass filter isn't done for cost-cutting reasons but to increase sharpness. (if it was the D800E would cost less than the D800 LOL!)

X-trans was developed to allow the LPF to be left out without worrying about moire. X-trans itself is no more expensive to make than Bayer, since its just changing the pattern of RGB filters on the pixels. There might be some additional processing horsepower needed, and costs associated with custom logic, but nothing significant.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

another reason may be a strong emotion in the Fujifilm to a have unique sensor, good quality or not is secondary consideration.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

It may not be more expensive to manufacture an X-Trans sensor, but I'm sure Fuji spent lots of R&D money on developing it. The customers pay for that, too.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

they had some interesting inventions with some advantages but proved no good solution at the end of the day.

they could just make use of it for the much simpler X-Trans, and to justify wasted money.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (7 months ago)

Why is Fuji watering down the reputation & image of the X-Series with their cheaper models coming out recently by employing the same retro classic design used on the X-pro1, X-E1, & x100? This seems to be bad marketing. If Fuji wants to add tiltable screens, WiFi, etc on their cheaper cameras I hope they would at least use a different design language to differentiate it from the higher level models. It would nearly be an insult to an X-Pro1 or X-E1 owner if he was asked by someone if his camera was a X-M1 or X-A1 without a viewfinder.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Solar Eagle
By Solar Eagle (7 months ago)

If somebody is insulted by such a question I'd say they have some issues to work out.

5 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Its not easy to go up-market and stay there. Probably, only Leica can. The X-pro1 and X-100 was started as a poor man Leica. It has that "rangefinder" Leica look-a-like design. It was a hit in the beginning for those who could not afford the real McCoy. Since its image quality is fine, sales were OK but its slow AF is something the average consumer is not able to accept. This, the rather expensive price and other shortcomings prevent it from getting more sales. What Fuji want is the mass market. Unlike Leica, Fuji is a mass market company. So eventually, they have to do what they are doing now.

If, in your soul, you want to be a fast food company, you cannot be in the gourmet food business.

Fuji, afterall, is just trying to make some money for themself.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

The X100 gained Fujifilm a solid reputation in the enthusiast market, while the X-Pro1 was well received in the "I wanna own a Leica but am too middle class to afford one" niche.

Volume is needed to drive the lens ecosystem. So, it is necessary to drive the X-mount system downmarket, taking on Olympus and Panasonic, chiefly.

It is important to understand that the existence of cheap lenses and cameras in the X-mount system has no negative impact on the higher end products, just as Nikon selling D3200s and 18-55mm F4.5-5.6 lenses takes nothing away from people using a D4 and the 24-70/2.8.

2 upvotes
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (7 months ago)

Thank you white shadow & Richard Murdey... for your kind explanation about why Fuji is making such decisions. I learned a lot.

And, thank you Solar Eagle in the above for your very RUDE & confrontational comment.
It seems the dpreview.com forum needs 'age limit' filtering in order to bar immature people from sending others unnecessarily rude comments.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
pavi1
By pavi1 (7 months ago)

No viewfinder, think I will stick to my iPhone and D300S for now. When will they learn?

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

they've already made higher-end models with optical and EVFs. This is intended to be the least expensive of the series, so no viewfinder. Nothing to learn -- it's the discount model. And even without the viewfinder, this will smoke your iPhone.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (7 months ago)

you don't have a VF on your iphone either... maybe you should stick to your old rotary-dial phone and film camera instead.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

An I phone is a Phone that makes pictures, a camera is a machine that takes pictures and makes video only, so, a camera has to have a viewfinder. Without that it is a yuppie tool for ladies and tourists. You can make pictures without a VF, but for the optimal comfort in all situations, a VF is must. Me, as a very old photographer, would never play with a camera without VF. I never take shots with a lcd display, unless a subject is at ground level.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

For those who want a viewfinder, they just have to get the X-Pro1 or the X-100s. This camera is not for you.

For those who want a real rangefinder viewfinder camera, they have to get a Leica M. Just too bad. They are the only company making them. If you are not willing to pay the price, just too bad too.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

When will you? What you have been sitting around thinking to yourself that you need Fuji to release an entry level camera that is better than your D300 in every way? That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. I bet you say this with every P&S that gets released. And whenever a camera is announced that ISN'T your D300, you find some nitpicking fault with it:

'Oh the play button is on the right, will they never learn?'

'Too many MP will they never learn?'

Just to make yourself feel better about the camera you have. Here is an idea: why not instead of having a self indulgent whinge you actually go and use your 'last bastian of perfect camera design' and take some photos. Hell you can even marvel at the viewfinder and the layout of the buttons and think to yourself 'how did they get this just so right'.

5 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

LOL....love it.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

@Shamael
Clip a focusing hood on the rear LCD and it will be almost like looking at a Rollei TLR viewfinder. That should satisfy your needs as a "very old photographer". Otherwise buy one of their other models that has an eye level viewfinder.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Gee Ansel Adams' 4x5" and 8x10" cameras didn't have a viewfinder either -had had to look at and focus with that old fashioned groundglass on the back, and to top it all off the image was inverted.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
pavi1
By pavi1 (7 months ago)

Problem is it is a pitiful camera that requires reading glasses and extended arms to take a picture. iPhone camera is for taking pictures of things you need to pick up at the grocery store so no real need for a viewfinder,

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

Breaking: Rumors hit dpreview! How about the om-d e-m1 rumor? Not enough leaks yet?

6 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (7 months ago)

I wrote about the same earlier, we've seen EM1 from every angle, with the lens, without the lens, with the grip, in the video, etc. I think EM1 is the most leaked camera ever officially

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

They signed NDA with Olympus regarding E-M1. I guess a month or so ago. :)

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

Hope we will not see now suddenly DPR-Rumors rising. DPR is the chamion of "click around to find you way" site. We know the game, every page has publicity and the more pages you click, the more they get money for this. That's why you have to click eternally around on this site to find what you look for. On the end we will need a site map to find back our children in that jungle. DPR is informative, good reports, like it, but the whole site is a crap and a real mess, in other words, a waste of time. I more step over to other sites lately, Imaging Resource, Photographyblog, Techradar, and similar are simple, easy to overview, and in one click you are where you want to be, and not around seven corners. DPR sucks.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

DPR is jealous of those other rumor sites, but being under NDA they have to keep their mouths shut. Fuji is obviously not one of their equipment suppliers, so rumors is a fair game.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

DPR often has articles about rumors and it has nothing to do with NDAs. They are reporting what others are reporting, or in this case a press release that shouldn't have been released yet. They are not giving away confidential information, they are reporting information that is already in the public sphere.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

Maybe they should start an independend rumor site not bound to nda's dprumors.com

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (7 months ago)

DPreview has posted loads of rumours, and they've always turned out to be true. It's almost as if they already had the rumoured cameras to play with under NDA so got round that by posting links to correct rumours instead :)

0 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (7 months ago)

Meh - the draw of the Fuji system is the sensor technology, at least if you like the output from X-Trans + Fuji JPEG processing*. I can't imagine it costing Fuji to put their X-Trans sensor in the cheaper model. After all, it's just another chip.

* Disclosure: I do, but it has its shared of critics, and not without justification (you can either love the colours or not).

1 upvote
Caerolle
By Caerolle (7 months ago)

Can't they still do the 'Fuji JPEG processing'? Or is that dependent on the X-Trans?

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

The X100 had great colours, arguably better than their X-Trans models - No reason to believe that this won't.

2 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (7 months ago)

They did put the X-Trans sensor in their less expensive model - it's called the X-M1. More expensive than the A1 and less than the E1. Now do you get it? And no, it is not "just another chip". What a moronic comment.

0 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (7 months ago)

"They did put the X-Trans sensor in their less expensive model - it's called the X-M1. More expensive than the A1 and less than the E1. Now do you get it? And no, it is not "just another chip". What a moronic comment."

What an utterly clueless comment.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

Why is it utterly clueless, tinternaut? Fuji does make a cheaper model with X-Trans, and now they will release a true budget model, where they have cut costs even further.

0 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (7 months ago)

"Why is it utterly clueless, tinternaut? Fuji does make a cheaper model with X-Trans, and now they will release a true budget model, where they have cut costs even further."

Because X-Trans really is just another chip. Yes, it's design is different, but the economics of it remain the same. In other words, the more of them Fuji order, the cheaper they become, and the higher the profit margin on the end product. I'm terribly sorry if I've upset of bloody fanboi by saying that, but that's just the way of it.

Like Canon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax and Nikon, Fuji are probably better off standardising on one single sensor technology. It will drive the cost of the hardware down and reduce development costs.

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (7 months ago)

I hope we see some manufacturers break ranks from this artificial marketing thing where you have to pay $1000 for a camera with a view finder. Hopefully the Sony A3000 can help break this nasty little habit camera makers have at the moment. Rear screen only cameras are completely useless at long focal lengths let alone in bright sunlight.
They are trying to manoeuvre us all into accepting that EVF's as a luxury item which is I suspect complete nonsense.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (7 months ago)

I paid $400 for my Samsung NX20 back in November 2012, with a VF. Sometimes you just have to be less obstinate about which direction you accept to look in.

2 upvotes
Caerolle
By Caerolle (7 months ago)

I love my EVF, but LCDs are great if you are shooting on a tripod, esp. tiltable LCDs, and esp. if you are shooting macros or something else low to the ground.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Viewfinders are expensive. End of story. They add significantly to the cost of a camera. That is why they are seen in more expensive models and not very often in cheaper models. This has nothin to do with marketing, other than that that is one area of cost savings they can make in a design that enables them to bring a cheaper model to market for the masses that don't care about viewfinder - most of which you won't find on an enthusiast camera site like this.

You want a viewfinder? Pony up the cash for the model with a viewfinder.

1 upvote
iAPX
By iAPX (7 months ago)

I think that it's not necessarily the best move for Fuji, to have a lower-quality sensor, and lower price-point for it's mirorless camera system, at least for the non-fixed lens models.

I'd rather preferred a low-cost variant of the X100s, meaning no hybride EVF (or no EVF at all), the impressive 16MP X-Trans sensor, the incredible X100s fixed-lens, with less expensive body (meaning plastic instead meatl), and simpler controls for beginners.

A camera for the beginners of our days, that will be able to deliver incredible results and still be accessible to anybody, with nearly perfect DR 400% JPEG quality out of the box!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

Let's wait and see. First of all, we do not know what sensor Fuji will use, and if it does same good color and sharpness, combined with less artifacts and ghosting, it could in some way "do better". We are always open for surprises. Specially the algorythm will probably be a common sense one and here PS and other soft will make a good job with it, in opposite to X-trans and it's secret algorythms that Fuji does not wants to open to them. Do not forget that X100 is considered one of Fuji's best gear and that one has no x-trans sensor, but just an ordinary one. That sensor is somewhat old, so I suspect Fuji to take that Sony 20 mpix this time, but this is only "I suspect" stuff.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Makes no sense. You say it's "not the best move" for them to offer an economy model of their higher-end gear, then you say they should make something cheaper in a fixed-focal-length design with professional-quality output from a cheap plastic body.

What planet did you come here from?

Beginners don't want a 35mm fixed-focal length camera, and aren't willing to pay for professional-grade output (much less understand DR and HDR). Beginners want cameras like the Nikon D3200 with an 18-105 lens at less than $750, or something like a point-and-shoot with a zoom lens, or an iPhone with Instagram.

This camera is the most stripped-down entry-level model in the "X" line, with a still-plenty-good-enough sensor for beginners who want an interchangeable mirrorless camera with Fuji's styling. If this doesn't fit, there are plenty of other choices.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

"I'd rather preferred..." Is the key here. That is something YOU want because you don't want to pay for the X100S, which if we are honest a lot of people on here would like: X100S for $500. But that isn't going to drive people new to photography - they want to know how many megapixels and how many zooms. A cheap X100S fails at this.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

Who says the sensor is "lower quality" because it is not X-Trans? I seems every other camera maker uses "lower quality" sensors too.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (7 months ago)

Yeah, like two weeks ago. Holy crap are there really that many DPR readers who have never heard of photo rumors dot com?

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (7 months ago)

Trying to fill up the marketing segment strata.

Same technique as the big boys, so Fuji follows the leaders.

.

3 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (7 months ago)

Just good business sense. I reckon Fuji are not doing too bad a job of reconciling purist, photographer and commercial realities. It's not easy.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I don't need low quality cameras. but I would prefer if Fujifilm can sell lenses at a little bit reasonable prices.

14/2.8, ~ USD 270, ref. C/N 20/2.8 (avg 553 at amazon.com)
18/2, ~ USD 320, ref. C/N 28/2.8 (avg 390)
23/1.4, ~ USD 390, ref. Canon 35/2 (avg 445)
27/2.8, ~ USD 90, ref. Canon 40/2.8 (199)
35/1.4, ~ USD 180, ref. Nikon 50/1.8G (217)
56/1.2, ~ USD 490, Nikon 85/1.8G (497)
60/2.4, ~ USD 400, ref. Canon 100/2.8 (avg 824)

20/2.8 lenses for SLRs are expensive to make but that's not the fault of mirrorless mounts so no correction is applied.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (7 months ago)

Fuji lenses are too expensive, and the quality is not that good.

4 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (7 months ago)

I'd rather have high quality, expensive lenses than sub-par cheaper lenses any day.

5 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (7 months ago)

The quality is not that good? What are you smoking? The 35/1.4 is almost Leica summilux good. Better than any 35mm from Canon or Nikon.
You must be a NEX user...

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

expensive doesn't necessarily mean good quality or vise versa. Lecia and Zeiss lenses don't mean good quality or they wouldn't have been chased out by the Japanese.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (7 months ago)

Yabokkie it is not entirely equivalent. Yes, 35/1.4 is equivalent in terms of depth of field and angle to a full frame 50/1.8. BUT the design of the lens is still a 35/1.4 design. You are designing a 35/1.4 len, not a 50/1.8 lens, with all the physics involved. It is that lens that is designed as 35/1.4 that results in 50/1.8 equvalent. And 35/1.4 lens from most manufacturers costs over $1000 with exception of Sigma ($899). Why do you think the 35/1.4 lens is larger and heavier and has more glass than any 50/1.8 lens for full frame?

The same for all the others. 23/1.4 still requires a design of 24/1.4 lens that are inherently expensive. On the other hand, take 45/1.8 m43 lens. it is pretty cheap to buy, about $300, right. But you get yourself a 90mm equivalent lens. Here you are getting the benefits of the same equasion, it is easy to design a 45/1.8 (or a 50/1.8 lens) so that lens is light, small and cheap

4 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (7 months ago)

No, I'm Samsung NX user. Their lenses are stellar, especially 30/2, 45/1.8 and 85/1.4, and not that expensive, especially when on sale. Paid $160 for 30, $200 for 45 and $560 for 85.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ supeyugin
to each his own -- your choice of samsung doesn't make fuji inferior.

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (7 months ago)

Absolutic,
"BUT the design of the lens is still a 35/1.4 design".
That is not true. On (D)SLRs any wide angle lens with a focal length equal or below 35mm needs a "retrofocus design" because the focal length is shorter than the mount-to-sensor/film distance.
On a MILC, this distance is much shorter, then a 35mm lens for this type of camera does not need a retrofocus design, thus it is lighter, shorter, and should be cheaper, than its (D)SLR counterpart with the same aperture. As an example, the 16mm, 20mm and 30mm pancake lenses for the Samsung NX system are lighter and shorter than any lenses for (D)SLRs with the same focal length and aperture.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

At reasonable prices like the Sony-Zeiss 24mm Sonar f/1.8 for the NEX (about $1,000)?

Many Fujinon prime lenses are actually as good as Zeiss.

Fuji have also said that several of the X-mount lenses are made to cover a full frame image circle.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (7 months ago)

@Karroly

Although you say they don't need to, many of the better wide angle lenses made for mirrorless digital cameras actually use a retrofocus design (including some of Leica's recent lenses).

Unlike film, digital sensors don't work all that well at the edges when light strikes at an oblique angle - which is what you get when you use a symetrical non-retrofocus design.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we do specify focal length in mm, cm, or inches but lens designs are basically for certain range of angle of views.

Leica's lens names are rubbish but Zeiss ones are good in that they come from basic design for certain angle of view and aperture size, with advantages and issues all told in one word.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> Sony-Zeiss 24mm Sonar f/1.8

it's half stop faster than Canon 22/2 but otherwise no better. we don't have good reference 35/2.8 lenses but using three 35/2 primes from Nikon and Canon as reference (average price 416) the Sony 24/1.8 should worth 240 US, so

Sony 24/1.8 is sold at 3.7x value and
Fuji 23/1.4 is sold at 2.3x value, more reasonable than Sony especially if you think its price used to be higher.

btw, Canon 22/2 will worth 160 using the same calc.
sold at about 1.5x value (tolerable?).

so contrary to many people's perception, Canikon 35mm format SLR lenses are not only of high quality but also more cost efficient.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (7 months ago)

Surprised dpreview is not talking about OMD EM1 which photos and video of use have been on the rumors site for weeks. To me it is more exciting than this XA1 release.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

they might be busy testing the camera if rumors were true.

1 upvote
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (7 months ago)

Enough with all this low-end stuff, enthusiasts want to see an X-Pro2 and X-E2 come out - its time.

13 upvotes
VisualFX
By VisualFX (7 months ago)

correct. I thought Fuji was standing up for photographers with very well made cameras and lenses. Metal, not plastic junk. Japan made, not China, made, etc. More X-E2/X-Pro2 metal bodies and quality, not X-M1 viewfinderless junk.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

Maybe they just want to end the year selling a lot of cameras.

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (7 months ago)

I'm with you, I'm itching for an X-pro2!
But I'd rather them wait & get it right, rather than releasing it too early before all the wrinkles get ironed out. Lets not forget, the x-pro1 was only announced January 2012. It's less than 2 years old.
Fuji just flew Zack Arias to Japan a couple of weeks ago, for his feedback on new products. He asked for everyone's input/suggestions to share with Fuji, then reported when he got back that he gave them the feedback and it was well received. The fact that they are going to Zack & David hobby for input is awesome imo.
(Fwiw- my suggestions were: adjustable diopter, a 90mm/2 tele and a full frame x100 & x-pro1 model :) )

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

Enthusiasts don't make up the majority of camera users, but the entry-level users do. And Fuji wants a larger market share, which explains this release.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Low end market is crowded, high end market is not.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (7 months ago)

There aren't enough enthusiasts on the planet that shoot Fuji to make a dent. They actually want to make money. Like I tell my children, "the world doesn't revolve around you".

4 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (7 months ago)

I would rather wait longer for X-E2 to come with organic sensor.

0 upvotes
NotSteve
By NotSteve (7 months ago)

So, this is basically the X-mount version of the K-01, if it's for real. More conservative in design, but the shape of the hand grip, non-black colour options and textures are very reminiscent of the K-01. The K-02 -- by Fuji.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

This is the NEX-3N/E-PM2/GF6 of the X-system. Why comparing it to the K-01?

2 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (7 months ago)

Greatly appreciate them offering a non-xtrans option...if this rumor is legit. They have opened up another category of the market that was annoyed by the raw-processing issues and demosaicing weaknesses of the x-trans scheme. The x-trans filtering scheme has some benefits but also some critical weaknesses.

Congrats to Fuji for a move toward broader acceptance.

7 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (7 months ago)

Agreed- I hope the x-pro2 has a CMOS sensor without an AA filter(or weak filter) instead of xtrans. The xtrans has the potential to be the future, but raw programs(adobe) really screwed Fuji over. I thought for sure they'd embrace it. Meh, C'est la vie

3 upvotes
iAPX
By iAPX (7 months ago)

The fact is the JPEG are totally impressive on X100s wioth X-Trans sensor, and this new camera targets primarily people that will use JPEG. Maybe X-Trans sensor had much sense than a classic bayer APS-C sensor, for JPEG shooters???

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ Samhain --

this is no longer the case, and hasn't been for some time -- this is just old rhetoric. Take a look at fuji rumors . com and read "Expert Corner" with Rico -- he's done extensive tests of all the RAW converters for X-trans and they're all more than adequate for the task.

1 upvote
Total comments: 282
12