Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm X-A1 real-world and test scene samples

By dpreview staff on Dec 31, 2013 at 06:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $449.99

The following real-world gallery and test scene shots were first published in our 2013 Camera Roundups, but we're highlighting the Fujifilm X-A1 again in case you missed it the first time around.   

The Fujifilm X-A1 is nearly identical to the X-M1 except for one key detail - it uses a 16MP sensor with a conventional Bayer color filter array, rather than the X-Trans design that's been used in other bodies. Like the X-M1 it offers twin dials that make it easier to take control and a tilting high-res 3.0-inch LCD. 

We also published test scene shots, including downloadable Raw files of both the daylight and low light scene. As usual this allows you to compare the X-A1 with other cameras, as well as letting you download the images to test with your own workflow.

There are 20 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

40
I own it
20
I want it
14
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 105
deechnz
By deechnz (3 months ago)

I agree with a comment made 3 weeks ago- the sample gallery photos are not taken with the 16-50 XC kit lens (f3.5-5.6), they are taken with the better 18-55 XF lens (f2.8-4). Also the studio scene comparison tool uses the much better XF 35mm f1.4. I am seriously thinking about getting one of these but like most people I will use it with the kit lens that it comes with rather than spending an extra $400 to buy an extra lens. I really wish that DP would put up material for this camera that is relevant to the majority of consumers who are considering buying it

1 upvote
MarshallG
By MarshallG (1 week ago)

If they test it with the kit lens, you can't compare it's performance against other cameras.

0 upvotes
aytackurtuba
By aytackurtuba (3 months ago)

The test results and galery photos are very success ...
I wonder that , has it a panorama mode or not ?

0 upvotes
naturalbornkoller
By naturalbornkoller (3 months ago)

Obviously Dpreview testers accidentally used NR -2 on Daylight Mode instead of NR 0 in the studio comparison tool. You can easily see the huge difference when you use the Bulb/low light Mode instead.

0 upvotes
jenbenn
By jenbenn (3 months ago)

Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!

Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.

4 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (3 months ago)

Great, but no one in their right mind would ever look at real world pictures and heavily analyze pieces of felt or microcontrast in grass. If you are an ISO 100 nature photographer with heavy emphasis on greenery, yes the x-trans is not well sutied. However it is still the case that overall the technology is mostly moire free and has superb repression of chroma noise at high ISO (even if you do remove the manufacturer ISO advantage).

I do agree the differences can be heavily negated in post, but unlike most folks I think camera's that produce jpegs that do 97% of what you would have done in post as a *good* thing.

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

Have you compared the samples to each other side by side? The difference is not subtle, it is glaringly obvious - you can see it from Mars. This affects yellows and greens with a texture of all kinds quite a lot. Especially problematic when upsampled for large prints..

0 upvotes
jenbenn
By jenbenn (3 months ago)

RIght, such detail does not matter most of the times. But why build an x-trans sensor if the bayer sensor is superior (even be it ever so slightly)??????
As regards the lack of moiré , no, the xtrans is not any better than a bayer sensor with AA filter. (It is actually worse, just google for the online comparisms if you don believe me) The jpeg proessing has nothing to do with the colur filter of the sensor. e.g you can easily have fuji colours and lack of noise out of bayer filter. Thus, I would prefer if all fuji cameras had the x-a1 sensor. There is simply no adavantage in x-trans. It is just a marketing hype, selling people an inferior sensor for inflated prices. Honestly, I am not here to bash fuji. I think they build the best handling and well rounded mirrorless cameras with thze best lens selection on the market. It is just stupid that they go with an inferior sensor, even though they can do better as the x-a1 shows.

0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (3 months ago)

There are other comparisons which clearly show X-Trans to have the edge. But DPReview uses Adobe Camera RAW whose X-Trans conversions are still not as good as some other converters.

0 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (3 months ago)

How do you explain the poor results of the xtrans sensor on the out of camera jpg images in the textured greens and yellows of the studio scene test sample then? No camera raw involved in that.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (3 months ago)

You know not what you speak of..
Your looking at the difference in raw converter (w/ raw files) and base jpg settings (w/ ooc jpgs) NOT the difference in sensors. The X-Trans sensors have better iso performance and detail resolve than comparable bayer array sensors, period.
Will that be the case forever, probably not, but is the reality atm. One would hope that manufacturers will get back to designing sensors with more concern in ISO performance rather than super high mp that you have to throw away (downsampling) but it is likely that it won't happen until some proverbial threshold is reached in mp..

You won't find it on DPR but you can find plenty of other sources that process X-Trans raw files with different apps than Adobe that show more of what the sensors can do.. Just because Adobe products are the most used doesn't mean they are the best to use - if you have trouble grasping that simple concept you probably should not be publicly voicing your criticisms of the products.

0 upvotes
srados
By srados (3 months ago)

Not from DPR but this is too dark in shadows...http://www.pbase.com/photogenix/image/153986940

0 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (3 months ago)

Hello DPReview Staff,

When can we expect to see the X-E2 Review? I have to resort to other sites to find Reviews nowadays; this is not like it was in the Phil Askey days...

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (3 months ago)

I'll help out.

The XE-2 is an XE-1 with a bigger screen and faster focusing. Other than that you can't tell them apart.

I didn't like the XE-1 but those two things make the XE-2 a much much nicer camera to use. If only it had the fold out screen of the XM-1 it would be perfect....

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

It has a significant difference to the XE-1 in that the jpegs have less shadow range. Shadow setting at 0 is the equivalent of +1 on the XE-1.

For low contrast jpeg shooters (like portraits) this is a major bummer.

0 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (3 months ago)

@Hugo808

Thanks, I already knew these facts. However, the same things can be said for every Canon and Nikon incremental model as well: Does this mean DPR should only review the first model, and then state that the newer models are "almost the same" QED ?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

copy and paste is an important work at DPReview.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (3 months ago)

@itsastickup: Interesting info that I actually haven't heard elsewhere. But why can't you just set it to +1 and forget it?

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

"But why can't you just set it to +1 and forget it?"

What I meant is that the XE-2 loses on the shadow range. It goes down to an equivalent of -1 on the XE1, instead of -2.

I always have my cam on -2 and would prefer it on -3, and that's the XP1 which is the same as the XE-1.

I was thinking of getting the XE2 until I came across these and other problems.

0 upvotes
malteser01
By malteser01 (3 months ago)

Hmm...'real-world'. How do you figure? In the real world, this camera is going to be bought with the XC16-50, not the XF18-55. Yet you've used the XF lens in all these shots. So 'interesting' would be more appropriate since these shots allow direct comparison with the higher end cameras in the X series, but they're not really representative of what most XA1 buyers will expect.

That said, does this mean we can finally see DXO tests of the rest of the Fuji lenses? After all, this is a bayer array which is supported!

3 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (3 months ago)

Hey DPR, have you changed the way pictures download in the real world section?

When I click on "original" all I get is a thumbnail that doesn't open at a click of the mouse like they did last week.

Or is it just my computer?

0 upvotes
jmanzar
By jmanzar (3 months ago)

Very nice pictures in this gallery!

3 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (3 months ago)

It would be nice to see the exposure values right there on the comparison tool. Not very convinient having to download the JPGs to see them.

Think it's pretty important information to know while comparing the results that for example in the ISO 6400 shots the X-A1 required a longer exposure than the NEX-3N with the same ISO and aperture:

NEX-3N: 1/3200 f5.6

X-A1: 1/2000 f5.6

3 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (3 months ago)

Hover over the 'i' in the corner...right next to the download link.

2 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (3 months ago)

Thanks for the tip!

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (3 months ago)

Are these taken with exposure on auto? Every one of them looks significantly underexposed to me. Fine on screen maybe, but they'll print awfully dark. If that's auto, I'd be using +2 compensation all the time.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (3 months ago)

Aside from a bit nervous bokeh of this lens, what is striking to me when I look at the studio scene's resolution slider, every Bayer sensor lights up with moire like a Christmas tree. By comparison, XTrans has no signs of moire. Can someone explain how XTrans filter pattern helps combat moire? Is it alternating patterns that do that?

2 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (3 months ago)

Moire can happen with an Xtrans sensor too but it is far rarer. The pattern on the xtrans is less regular and covers a larger area so interference effects with patterned materials are less common. I have seen it in a very distant shot of the pattern made by bricks on the wall of an apartment building when the camera was slightly off level.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it may be more because that the new XTrans algorithm is not well studied yet. it should have more issues than Bayer.

but then part of the photography is about how to cheat human eyes, kinda like JPEG which loses details, introduces noises, and accepted by great mass of the people.

I'd avoid XTrans as much as possible and Fuji know that there are many people like me.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Azurael
By Azurael (3 months ago)

That's funny. I'm sure there are real world examples where the XTrans doesn't perform too well, but it looks to be stomping all over anything in it's resolution class in the comparison tool. Even the Df is rendering less detail and a heck of a lot more moire at low ISOs. I'd certainly consider a Fuji X-series if I didn't already have NEX gear...

Sounds like you're just suspicious of the 'unknown'.

Edit: It seems a bit strange to be taling about this on the X-A1 article though. I've got to say I don't really see the point in this camera. It looks like it's well worth ponying up the extra few pennies for the X-E1/2!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (3 months ago)

"it may be more because that the new XTrans algorithm is not well studied yet. it should have more issues than Bayer."

No, it's because you clearly have no idea of what you are saying. Xtrans was precisely designed to reduce Moire occurrence and it does work.

9 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (3 months ago)

Thanks, Raist3d. If XTrans was designed to limit moire, that would explain why it shows up a lot less than with Bayer. ;)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Xtrans was precisely designed to reduce Moire occurrence and it does work.

XTrans was designed to reduce cost,
and as a result it sacrifies image quality,
exactly how much is the question.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

The X-A1 has a bayer colour filter AND an AA-filter to reduce Moiré
The X-trans does not have an AA filter. Which means sharper crispier photo's while the different colour pattern reduces Moiré.

the x-trans also produces a different kind of noise much more like film. The more complicated filter means you need a more powerful image processor. That means a more expensive product.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Which means sharper crispier photo's

non-LPF means more noise. though some people interpret those noise for resolution (there is a bit more resolution while the noise destroying them).

0 upvotes
midimid
By midimid (3 months ago)

One of the better reviews I've seen between these three cameras - to me the only con to the X-A1 is white balance issues and workflow issues that differ between non-Bayer and Bayer (i.e. if you own both, the processing is quite different between them). But when you take price into account, I'm definitely looking at the X-A1 as my future walk-around camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZL7aM3ZmI

0 upvotes
peterpainter
By peterpainter (3 months ago)

Perhaps Fuji should produce a version of the XE-2 with this Beyer sensor and at $200 cheaper........

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

all of their cameras should have Bayer and AA-filters but that's not very interesting for a less colorful world.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JapanAntoine
By JapanAntoine (3 months ago)

Looks nice.
This A1 could make a perfect second body to take on a stroll with a small prime (although the XF primes tend to be a bit big...).
To be continued!

2 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (3 months ago)

I know, I know, call me a fanboy (btw, that term applied in nearly every context, is asinine): I dropped the Nikon and plugged in the Samsung NX300; someone, I'll let you guess who, is being left out of the party (at least in the comparison default). Easy to make the XA-1 look good if you contrast it against the Nikon. [and that is not just picking on Nikon for the sake of picking on Nikon]

1 upvote
b craw
By b craw (3 months ago)

X-A1 - sorry.
By the way, I do really like the X-A1. You can argue Bayer array versus non Bayer X-Trans until you are blue in the face. In most scenarios, the qualitative differences are only slight. But that's the case with nearly all APS-C mirrorless in this price range.

2 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (3 months ago)

True... Heck that there even IS a long argument is evidence enough that the difference is minor.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

Good micro contrast. Is this Sony Sensor?

0 upvotes
Coguar
By Coguar (4 months ago)

really great gallery, one of the best in last time ....

6 upvotes
JKP
By JKP (4 months ago)

So A1 is a tad sharper, while "X-trans" M1 yields a bit less noise at ISO 6400. In addition, X-trans avoids moire in RAW, as seen in the three text samples.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

Why buy a Fuji if it doesn't have the X-trans sensor? I thought that was the whole idea behind owning that system?

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (4 months ago)

Personally, I think they make some of the best lenses. All sensors are pretty close to the same, the real reason to buy a camera are the lenses. The 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and likely the upcoming 56mm f/1.2 are pretty sweet lenses.

9 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

IQ is as good as low pixel full size.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (4 months ago)

New studio scene reveals that although x-trans greatly reduces chroma noise, luminosity noise is not due to anything but just barely in spec manufacturer ISO settings that are heavily inflated. Just look at the shutter speeds used...they are receiving a LOT more exposure compared to the Sony siblings.

It's interesting to see how many people demand more detail even though 85% of it is absolutely false. Just take a look at the fine text. People are just *used* to moire which is unfortunate...so much that they demand more from removing AA filters without any truly clever scheme to reduce it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (4 months ago)

...saying Fugi,I mean Fuji !

0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (4 months ago)

I say the 200$ difference between X-A1 and XM-1 is another contribution to depreciating Fugi costs of developing the X myth!!!...People,be smart!

2 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist
By pacnwhobbyist (4 months ago)

I'd almost be willing to bet that the sensor in the X-A1 is from Sony. Not that that's a bad thing at all.

0 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (4 months ago)

Of course its from Sony all the Fuji sensors are from Sony. The color filter array is Fuji specific (X-Trans)

3 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (4 months ago)

they finally got someone that can shoot

20 upvotes
dougster1979
By dougster1979 (4 months ago)

I`ll second that, finally!!!

4 upvotes
Zograf
By Zograf (4 months ago)

+1 as well. Most of their shots in the albums are done by mindlessly pointing the camera in random directions, except some portraiture of models.

7 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (4 months ago)

Nice set of pictures.

I agree that pictures in most of typical "real life" galleries are not as well composed or executed but on the other hand, the majority of camera or smart phone users approach the picture taking as "spray and pray" exercise. In this case the typical "real life" gallery is closer to reality than the best possible scenario showing what the camera is capable of - thus objections from more advanced and artistically inclined users as yourself.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (4 months ago)

DPReview's bayer settings continue to harm the test results of X-Trans sensors. I don't know why they would use bayer settings for non bayer cameras.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (4 months ago)

What bayer settings? The test shots from x-trans cameras are OOC jpegs, and anyway this camera IS a bayer camera.

5 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (4 months ago)

I was referencing the RAW comparison selections. Sorry. The X-A1 is bayer. The X-M1 is not. In the comparisons for Raw, the X-M1 looks horrible, because ACRs sharpening settings for X-Trans is a bit conservative. My apologies for the confusion.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (4 months ago)

But DPR have posted several analyses about x-trans raw support (and how it's improved greatly) and IIRC DPR turn off all sharpening in ACR and instead use photoshop to apply a uniform sharpening setting.

Certainly to my eyes the raw studio scene x-trans sharpness compares favorably to bayer cameras.

1 upvote
midimid
By midimid (4 months ago)

I have to agree with Asylum here - look at the sketch drawing of a man's head in the lower-right at ISO 200 RAW between the XA-1 and XM-1 - the XM is crazy soft, almost like its out of focus.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (3 months ago)

If dpreview wants to keep using a non optimal Adobe raw converter from Xtrans, yes, it will be softer. However, with Capture one, Iridient that's not the case.

1 upvote
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (4 months ago)

That settles it for me - no more x trans sensor fuji products in my bag. I want this sensor in an x pro1 .

5 upvotes
fierlingd
By fierlingd (4 months ago)

What settles it? judging by what I'm seeing the x-pro1 sensor resolves more detail. Better ISO too.

1 upvote
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (4 months ago)

Suit yourself, the bayer appears sharper to me compared to the xtrans which appears soft and noise reduced.

3 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (4 months ago)

These look good. I know it isn't popular to say but I don't find the X-Tran sensor to be anything miraculous. I like my X-E1. It is a good camera but I can't rave about it.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

"The Fujifilm X-A1 is nearly identical to the X-M1 except for one key detail - it uses a 16MP sensor with a conventional Bayer color filter array." So no Xtrans in this body.

As for your XE1 are you shooting raw and using ACR, CaptureOne and/or PhotoNinja to do extraction?

The XE1 samples I've seen and test shots I've done look excellent; the AF isn't great though.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (4 months ago)

@How, Hello, I think you misunderstood my post. As many are concerned with X-Trans vs Bayer I was noting that the Bayer shots looked good. X-Tran often gets over hyped on the DPR.

Yes, RAW and on and on. The X-E1 is merely one camera I shoot with. It isn't amazing but good enough to keep in the mix.

Thanks for the reply.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

mschan:

Guess I skipped the "These look good."

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (4 months ago)

@How, Thanks for the reply and have a Happy New Year. Hope you get some great shots in 2014 !

The same goes to all DPR posters...Happy New Year.

1 upvote
BertVelo
By BertVelo (4 months ago)

nice set

0 upvotes
Joel Benford
By Joel Benford (4 months ago)

Would be interesting to see some XTrans vs Bayer raw conversion comparisons...

12 upvotes
momo
By momo (4 months ago)

Are these real world samples all jpegs produced by the camera? Also, is this how the x-a1 kit is being sold, with the 18-55. Here, it's the 16-50. Comparable image quality?

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

great real life samples. Much better artwork than with the k-50. The sensor seems to be comparable to other 16mp cmos sensors made by sony. A little sharper than the x-trans

7 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (3 months ago)

I'd say the sensor in the K-50 (same or nearly the same as my K5 and possibly this Fuji) is certainly capable of these results. I'm not so sure my Pentax kit lens can render this beautifully in so many different situations, however. Just look at that contrast and bokeh! This is a fabulous lens if my eyes are not mistaken. Love the colors, especially if these are jpegs, they look georgeous. And yes really nice work by the photog, these shots would be a pleasure to view rgardless of the camera/lens used.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (4 months ago)

Serious contrast issues. Seems like the early shadow cut is affecting this camera also.

Apparently this disaster is due to dpreview saying that the pics of the earlier cams were rather low contrast.

Fuji should listen to their engineers not dpreview.

It's because of this problem that I definitely won't be getting an XE-2, and now I'm worried about the XP-2.

fix this issue, Fuji, or at least let shadows go down to -3 to allow us to compensate for your manipulation.

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (4 months ago)

I thought the same... looks like shot in velvia mode. Often half of the pic is pitchblack. Maybe advisable to shoot with shadow tone -1 as standard?

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (4 months ago)

Easy to adjust both for JPEG and of course in RAW. Why is this an issue?

2 upvotes
TDyrkacz
By TDyrkacz (4 months ago)

I believe this is just the fuji jpg processing. I find thius to be the case with the x100s as well, but the raw file has all the information needed to fix the issue. Don't get me wrong i kind of like the jpg processing, but if you want to recover the shadow detail you certainly can.

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (4 months ago)

"Easy to adjust both for JPEG and of course in RAW. Why is this an issue?"

Not if this is like the XE2, where shadow 0 is now the equivalent of shadow +1 on the XE1.

The point is that for jpeg shooters, which is one of the major attractions of Fuji, this IS an issue. They've lost quite a bit of shadow detail when all Fuji had to do was give us -3 shadow.

0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (3 months ago)

jpegs look great on my monitor. The photog appears to have made excellent use of exposure compensation to darken shadows for a very nice effect in some shots. I don't think it's the camera doing this, but rather a talented individual.

3 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (4 months ago)

Wow, a lot of luminance noise at higher iso (studio scene)! really grainy… but that way it seems to keep considerably more low contrast details than competitors, even entry-level D-SLRs.

Olympus will be forced to lower the price of its M4/3 cameras soon, because this one comes with a nicer kit lens & (to my taste) better IQ at exactly half the price of an E-M5 or an E-P5! Even the E-PL5 is more expensive.

Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympuses. (is that the correct plural of Olympus? ^^ )

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (4 months ago)

...than the Olympus'.
or ... than those from Olympus.

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (4 months ago)

thanx!

0 upvotes
Reg Natarajan
By Reg Natarajan (4 months ago)

Don't listen to him. Olympuses was correct. The apostrophe is only used for possessives or contractions, neither of which applies here. For plural, add "es" as you did. The variant of "than those from Olympus" was also correct.

6 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (4 months ago)

If you want to follow the Latin, I believe it should be Olympi.

4 upvotes
citizenlouie
By citizenlouie (4 months ago)

The correct sentence should be:

Plus I actually find the A1 fells more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus'. (notice the apostrophe at the end)

Because it IS used as a possessive. It's a contraction of "Olympus's cameras" like harrisoncac suggested. You know, the OP could avoid the confusing sentence structure by complete the entire sentence, which should be:

Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than Olympus' cameras (notice "the" is omitted if the entire sentence is spelled out).

What is being compared as more comfortable? (Fuji) A1 vs Olympus's cameras OR A1 (camera model) vs Olympus (the brand). Be careful with subject parallel agreement....

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JF69
By JF69 (4 months ago)

NB: If it's the possessive you're after you have to add the letter "s", even though the word "Olympus" ends with an "s".
So it would be " Olympus's ".

0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (3 months ago)

You never contract the possessive 's' in written English, sorry but that's hogwash. I agree that Olympuses is technically correct but it does sound unusual. The easiest edit would be "feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus cameras/ILCs/models/bodies/etc."

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (3 months ago)

wow, interesting reactions amongst english native speakers ^^
well, olumpus is not originally latin but greek. it should actually be olympos, the plural of which would be olympon ;)

thanks for the advise. i go with olympuses.
i realise it sounds unusual. like mercedeses or microsofts would sound odd.

0 upvotes
npires
By npires (4 months ago)

Good sharp photos. Fuji lenses are quite nice!

5 upvotes
grumpycat
By grumpycat (4 months ago)

And quite expensive.. Not leica expensive but still!

3 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (4 months ago)

Nope, not even Canon expensive. Do some research.

3 upvotes
grumpycat
By grumpycat (4 months ago)

I am that's why I made this statement!

4 upvotes
JapanAntoine
By JapanAntoine (3 months ago)

Or maybe you can try a Zeiss lens and tell us more about quality/price ratio? :-D

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (4 months ago)

Why do all the pictures look as if at night?

1 upvote
grumpycat
By grumpycat (4 months ago)

You know not everybody can live in the sunny FL! :)

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Sun is seldom in Seattle

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (4 months ago)

I would be more excited if it had a fixed f2.8 wide zoom lens for under $900. The lenses are expensive.

5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (4 months ago)

You can't have something for nothing. If you want a good quality lens constant F2.8 zoom like that, it will cost you. Look around the other brands. It's how it is, how it has been and how it will always be.

Unless of course you want a bad quality lens.

3 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (4 months ago)

I'm not sure about that, my Tamron 17-50 cost 300$, and it's really excellent. In fact it's the perfect standard zoom for me, because of it's flare resistance, which is a huge beniefit with my style of photography.
Maybe Tamron will produce the 17-50 for the X mount ?

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Raist3d, you are wrong, one can have me for nothing, but that offer adresses female photographers only. On the other hand, many lenses are much too expensive, some companies sell their bodies for nuts and the lenses for gold. Except Nikon, they have really lost the ground under their feet, they walk beside their shoes actually.

2 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

@couscous:

It's not simply a matter of sticking on an X-mount to the existing 17-50 (the current lens is $500 new, by the way).

The X cameras are mirrorless so that would require a new lens design to account for the sort flange back distance.

If Tamron did design a lens for X-mount it would probably be in the $700 range.

From what I understand the reason why Fuji went for the 2.8-4 option was to keep it small.

2 upvotes
naturalbornkoller
By naturalbornkoller (4 months ago)

Obviously Dpreview testers accidentally used NR -2 on Daylight Mode instead of NR 0 in the studio comparison tool. You can easily see the huge difference when you use the Bulb/low light Mode instead.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 105