Our Fujifilm X-M1 review: big photo quality in a small package?

Realy?
Menu - subjective...
Better JPEG? the difference is so minimal, that you can see it only in some crops.
How about video quality?

I would hope that they are not treating the X-M1 and the Nex-6 in the same class of camera since one has built in EVF.

Sony NEX-6 £600 is excellent value high end device competing with X-E1, E-M5, GX7 etc.

X-M1 £680 is a mid range device competing with NEX-5, E-PL5 etc.

The only justification for the higher price is the faster lenses available for the Fuji. Tough sell!

I can confirm this is not an issue in Aperture for months now.

Maybe you ought to learn how to use these cameras, LOL. There is an entire generation of photographers that is doing perfectly fine taking pictures with a large LCD screen as their viewfinder. I think you're just a little out of touch with what people are perfectly capable of doing these days with non-VF cameras. People are also taking great pictures with their smart phones these days too. Is it really so difficult to frame a shot with a large LCD? No, it's not. Millions of people are doing it every day. Just go to Flickr and look up NEX 5N or EOS M or any other non-VF camera, and you'll see that a lot of very nice photography is being doing with such cameras. Heck, just look up iPhoneography, too.

I think it's a generational thing. The younger generation is a lot more used to looking at an LCD, framing the shot with it, and shooting. No big deal. To the older generation, it seems like an impossibility! LOL. Guess they can't do that while holding their cane. :0

it is obviously designed for people who can't read or check facts before posting... as they already offer other models with said viewfinder for smarter and more evolved people who can read and check facts before posting.

I don't experience any problem shooting photos without a OVF. If I want to use an Optical View Finder I would just use my Canon 5D Mk2.

If you are a versatile photographer, you must learn how to compose with any type of finder. Try focusing with the film Hasselblad medium format camera.

Sometimes, I would actually prefer to compose and focus using the LCD screen. It is much easier for street photography. Don't you think it is good to have more choices in the digital world?

I did not know that holding a camera at arms length to frame a scene was amateurish. Thanks for the heads up-- now I have to start sending some money back and reduce my rates.

I was hoping to reply to T3's comment. I find your comment amazingly condescending. The generation you refer to may not mind trying to frame a picture, outdoors in bright light with a clumsy if not large LCD screen. Many of us though value precision, battery life and a OVF for it's simplicity.

I suppose I must defer to professionals, all of whom have a reason for avoiding your preferred smelly baby at arms length shot preparation.

Did you really, LOL twice while you wrote that comment or was that simply two more clumsy arrows that went astray?

@T3

"There is an entire generation of photographers that is doing perfectly fine taking pictures with a large LCD screen as their viewfinder."

A generation that never goes outdoors in bright sunshine.

There is no "coulda shoulda woulda". THere are TWO.. I repeat TWO higher priced models with viewfinders built in. AND they are not even expensive.

@thx1138

Why do we need a cheap Canon SL1? Why do we need a Pentax K500? Why do we need a Sony A3000? Why do manufacturers need an entry level camera? Why?

@ fakuryu

You are absolutely right.

Why should the user bother whether a manufacturer introduce less or more models. Isn't it good to have more choices?

Just buy the camera that suit you best.

@ thx1138 - "There is no need for both A1 and M1 and frankly based on pricing you'd have to be crazy to buy the M1."

How about just offering the various models, and letting the consumer decide? Why is that so "offensive"? What you fail to see is that it's far more valuable to offer these various models, at various prices, because it increases the chances that a consumer will choose one of these models, and thus get them into the Fuji system. In essence, they are offering another point of entry into the system. You may not think $200 is a big deal, but when it comes to the finicky consumer, $200 could make the difference between the consumer choosing Fuji, or choosing another brand (like Sony NEX). If $200 can tip a consumer towards choosing Fuji, that's a big win.

As for your inane suggestion of introducing "another 10 entry level models," there's such a thing as having too many models. Duh! You have to strike a balance between too many and too few. A1 and M1 is just right.

I agree with Richard's position... too many people stomping into the room yelling no VF therefore it can't be a camera. through their complaining they are either saying that this model should not exist or it may only be a duplicate of the already existing xe1 or xpro1 (which makes no more sense than they are making). not glorifying with an answer those who complain the model down isn't like the model above it is the way to go in this case.

I have it in my NX20, and hardly ever use it... in fact, I don't think I use it... it's more of a distraction when on screen than it is of use to me. so I don't think it's a big deal. of course, I think their other models have it if it's really needed (plus you get other goodies too for the price difference).

I have an electronic level in my E-P3 and use it constantly.

DenWil: there's plenty of "big cameras" for you.... not everyone is "fat: or overweight... humans come in many sizes..

DenWil -- The purpose of downsizing a camera is not to make it more or less hand-holdable. The purpose is to make it easier to carry with accessories in a pocket, purse, or small bag. Your critique totally misses the point.

Just go Medium Format.

There, I fixed it.

"I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography."

Sickly? Or just healthy and fit?

If your hands are too fat to hold such a camera, I think you have bigger problems to be worried about, hehe.

The reality is that not all of us measure our masculinity by the size of our camera. I use heavy FF DSLR gear for work, and have logged countless hours lugging around such gear. But it doesn't mean I want to do so in my off time. My attitude these days is that I only carry around my big gear when I'm *paid* to. Otherwise, for personal, casual shooting, I use compact, smaller, lighter mirrorless gear. And my fingers know exactly where to go. We're not oafish mountain apes, for crying out loud. (At least some of us aren't. LOL)

well said T3! +++
I can't believe that people are knocking this for size when they have the oversized-for-mirrorless xe1 and xpro1 to choose from!
I'm 6ft2 and 195# and not fat at all, don't have girly hands and don't feel less of a man just because I LOVE mirrorless cameras, especially the more reasonably sized ones like this one.

Think of it as a frequent flyer program. When you're in an airport and they call the diamond, platinum, gold, silver and bronze members. Each of these people thinks they are special but there's no one left in the boarding area.

Just my 2c, but I think these days every half-decent camera just _are_ technical masterpieces, and thus it may be hard not to give a gold award. Well I'm just expressing this from my modest photography-gadgetry needs ;-) Anyhow, yet I see the point where gold awards tend to be given away easily and looses its exclusivity. Having said that, maybe the introduction of some "Platinum Award" might be an idea which would strictly be reserved to anything which would be "outstanding"?

Shurato, your point is well taken, but I think that the improved quality of cameras is and should be reflected in their percentage scores. The award system should serve to distinguish the top few cameras of the year, and the standards by which they are judged should increase as the competition improves. Right now the award system tells us nothing because so many cameras are gold. They should either give out fewer golds or add in a new level like platinum or diamond.

The problem with reserving Gold rating for only a few cameras is: The great cameras are not all released at the same time.

What happens when they hold-off giving out one of the few remaining Gold ratings, just in case they need one later in the year - when some great camera MAY be released?

Or, do they just give them out as the cameras arrive on the market, and "too bad" to the great cameras which debut after all the year's allotment of Gold ratings have already been handed-out?

I'm not advocating for a quota, just a higher standard of what should be gold. It could be that five or six cameras in a year deserve a gold award, but it also could be that none deserve one. There have been three cameras announced this year that have received gold awards and I don't think any of them deserved it.

An additional perspective is that, perhaps, there is truly no single camera that is better for everyone. Perhaps many of the cameras are equally good, but have different strengths and different weaknesses. What is "gold" for one user might not be "gold" for another.

They also hit the GearShop before they hit the street and we get some accumulated user experience. Remember, orbs.

I think it really depends on the camera's label.
If it says "Samsung" it gets criticized... if it's among the ones they prefer (the ones they have lying around in the office - see size comparison photos above) then it'll get a favourable review.

Software - conversions with Irident and Aperture are sharper than results for any other APS-C camera. LR no longer has "mush" either in most circumstances, but is a bit soft for my my preferences (but many use it successfully with NIK tools etc).

Samsung NX.

I think you are being too anal retentive here. Just buy one and enjoy using it.

E-M1 is a different class of camera and priced accordingly.

The Fuji X-M1 is more akin to the E-PL5 from Olympus.

I agree with ecm, and don't see the answer as reasonable. Yes, in some perfect universe, playing even keeps things even. But the eyes show this isn't happening. The Fuji images are simply soft. If some "adjustment" is being made between these results and the final glowing gold medal praises at the end, then those need to be visible here somehow--perhaps with some more optimally corrected (sharpened) examples side by side? As is it chips away at the overall credibility of the testing, which is part of dpreview's foundation.

You guys gotta take a step back, scrape your nose of the monitor and look at the actual images. These are some of the most pleasantly rendered images i have seen straight out of camera from any ILC or SLR.

And forget about that damned studio comparison tool.

Yes I agree I can't understand what the dpreview staff is smoking, the output is absolutely horrible.

Ludicrous comment - if Fuji dropped x-trans now I would sell my cameras tomorrow. The output is outstanding to my eyes. Perhaps you are in the minority here?

The iq is virtually identical. I am not sure where you are getting its different

As for "serious camera" that's all relative. Get the xe1 then

DPR uses the default Adobe RAW settings to compare "apples to apples" for the RAW files. Unfortunately, this only works for cameras with the same color filter array. Due to the different CFA and the soft default settings Adobe uses for the X-trans, this comparison is not "apples to apples". DPR should correct to soft Adobe default sharpening for the X-trans such that the files can be more readily compared.

Seriously ... People would complaint about a tricycle missing its fourth wheel.

When did the X-E1 become invisible ?

If only there was some way to get an X-trans sensor with an EVF. Fuji should really address that gap in the market. In fact they might benefit from trying to invent some sort of hybrid OVF/EVF. I wonder if there could be a market for such a thing? It might even be worth them considering introducing such a thing for both fixed and changeable lens cameras. If I were them I might be tempted to go for something like a 35mm equivalent for the fixed lens version. What do other people think?

The problem is that those don't work as a side-by-side:

Someone who likes the 35mm equivalent view offered by the Leica and Fujifilm are unlikely to consider a 28mm equiv. camera to be a sensible alternative (even if you us the Ricoh's 35mm equiv crop mode).

So you end up with an X100S vs Leica X2 comparison and a Ricoh vs Nikon vs Sigma piece, which we tried to do, only to find the Sigma wasn't particularly comparable.

Because when you put things where they belong you end up with something that looks like a 35mm rangefinder camera.

Fuji always tries something weird to get noticed among the completion but it never works.

Which can't focus very quickly, especially in low light.

I always find a cameras ability to focus quickly high on my list of 'wants' (my pets and nieces and nephews don't do 'still')

If its not than, yes, this looks like a great little camera.

Keep them coming :)

Don´t know where you get your numbers from. The review says "In good lighting, the bundled 16-50mm lens locked focus in 0.3 secs at wide-angle and 0.6 secs at telephoto."

Definitely did not find focus times to be anywhere near as bad as you describe.

Guys I am extremely sure AmatuerSnaps has done extensive testing with this camera before making his comments.

Ever heard of manual focus lens? If you don't think before you shot, I guess AF speed is very important. Don't forget to troll Leica BTW.

If any focus speed difference, how much of that is due to the new "slower" lenses available with this, compared to the other models that had brighter lenses when tested? Might it do as well as the others if it were tested with the same lenses? There is a difference in the motors (LM versus the ones that come with this), and they're not as bright either.

The AF button selects the AF point - it doesn't initiate AF. The macro button allows close focusing (which speeds up AF in normal shooting). Auto ISO allows setting of maximum ISO and minimum shutter speed, but the latter only across the same limited range as the X100/X100S. The dials can't be reconfigured - the only customisable control on the X-M1 is the Fn button.

Yes, the review is shorter, mainly because we're trying to crank these out faster.

That is probably why dpreview have scored the iq higher than any of the examples you have given. They must be utterly incompetent. Either that or you are.

I think a lot people put large emphasis on high ISO.

But I agree that at low ISO it does come a bit short compared to most of its peers, due the X-Trans design. A bit softer RAW files (for which you can partially compensate), a bit mushy greens in general due to the different color filters and moiré problems with diagonal lines (see test charts). And even at high ISO, you should substract about half a stop from indicated ISO's compared to most of its peers for the camera being a bit too optimistic in this regard.

Quite a few stories are suggesting that the most widespread tools (Adobe, etc.) don't process the RAW files nearly as well as they could. From what I read, Iridient seems to do the best job by far. If dpr is using Adobe, that could be a problem.

Agreed, I strongly recommend professionals to look at the RAW import. There's quite a difference especially with this new X-Trans technology. Here's a DPReview user who has compared Lightroom 4.4 with Iridient 2.1.1 output, clearly showing the better clarity with Iridient: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51732276?image=3

The IQ from my x100s is as good as it gets. Where have you seen prints from these cameras? I can make a 40x60 that is sharp all the way to the corners.
Contrast? That comes during processing.

The "IQ problem" got the Gold Award. Odd, isn't it. Or maybe there is no real problem. Ah, choices, choices...

The Fuji "hype" for me is...having the IQ of a Nikon D600 (I've now sold mine) in a small, light weight package. Allowing me to get images from subjects I would not get otherwise, due to the intimidation factor, etc of a larger DLSR / lens combo.
Also, now I have this IQ potential with me every single day. No way I would carry a D600 kit with me at all times. Fuji makes this a joy.

I understand why dpreview needs to use standardized tests, yet unfortunately, this results in veiling the IQ potential of the x trans sensor. Iridient Developer, C1P7 or the free supplied SilkyPix do not suffer from "mushy" greens and certainly not any lack of detail resolution.

Is the Fuji perfect? Of course not, nor is my D800 or Mamiya RZ67 ProII with a Leaf Aptus 33MP digital back.

My Fuji XP1 (with the incredible 14mm, 23mm soon, 35mm, 60mm lenses) is my favorite photographic tool. Period.