Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review

By dpreview staff on Mar 1, 2013 at 16:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $598.996 deals

Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 review. With a sensor and imaging pipeline that is identical to the X-Pro1's the X-E1 promises much of the X-Pro1's fun in a more compact and affordable package. We've spent the past few weeks using the X-E1 intensely with the full range of lenses now available for the X-system, and have prepared a full in-depth review. Following the release of raw support from Capture 1 and much improved raw support from Adobe, the X-E1 (and X-Pro 1) just got a whole lot more appealing, too. Click the links below to go to our full review.

603
I own it
78
I want it
88
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 527
123
Mdopp
By Mdopp (Mar 2, 2013)

I am still puzzled by this "camera locks up" issue.
I own the X-E1 for over two months now together with three lenses (the zoom, the 35 and the 14mm). During that time I have shot some 2500 pictures with it and the camera never ever locked up. Not even once.

5 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Mar 2, 2013)

Same here. I've haven't had any issues, especially since the new firmware improved the autofocus speed.

0 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Mar 2, 2013)

I've never had any problems either.

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Mar 2, 2013)

EM5 user comment. I didn't have the reported lock ups for months, then one day after fumbling about and changing a lens, shazaam, it locked up. Perhaps it's just like my car's digital display and bluetooth, sometimes it just gets confused, but you need the right, or wrong, circumstances... Have a good weekend taking photos.

2 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 3, 2013)

This could be related to changing lenses often while still having the camera on, perhaps something similarly simple, highlighting a workflow glitch that may otherwise not show itself readily. This is a good thing as it can now be isolated and rectified, Fuji has shown a clear willingness to refine and correct with the x-series.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Amateurbob
By Amateurbob (Mar 2, 2013)

To determine picture quality the first places I look are dynamic range and sample gallery. The sample gallery confirms the results of the dynamic range comparisons – the X-E1 set at DR 100 cannot match my Nex C3. Why was picture DSCF9046 not taken at DR 200 and DR 400 so one can get an idea of what the camera can do. Why not set the camera at DR 200? Is there some disadvantage in doing so? It is stated that DR200 is like underexposing a stop to retain highlights then adjusting the brightness afterwards, and DR400 is like underexposing by two stops and adjusting further. How does that increase dynamic range? It was shown that it increased dynamic range. If one underexposes the highlights they also underexpose the shadows. What is the dynamic range of a sensor?

2 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Mar 2, 2013)

If you work with 8 bit per colour jpgs, you have 8 bits of DR and you cannot increase the DR by underexposing because, as you say, you lose shadow detail. RAW files increase the DR as you have access to all the bits of DR that are available. I'm not familiar with this camera but, at the optimum ISO of 200, the Nikon D700 captures about 10 to 11 bits of DR. Using Nikon Capture's D-Lighting tool, it's possible to boost the shadows without boosting the highlights, to pull out shadow detail. As you increase the ISO, the low order bits become progressively swamped by noise, leading to a loss of DR.
If you use NotePad++ to examine 16bit per colour Tiffs generated from RAW, and pass the data into a spreadsheet, you can see the effects of noise on the low order bits with the aid of a bit of simple statistical analysis.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 2, 2013)

^ That's how the maths killed photography.

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Mar 2, 2013)

None of the D-Lighting like features really increase DR. They just adjust for exposure, shadow and highlight curves, then apply a brightness correction. RAW files do have an advantage in that it captures a bit more headroom.

However, I do like and use those features because they work well in high contrast scenes to lift shadows and tame highlights without me having to make manual adjustments to get the same effect.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 2, 2013)

That's bothered me as well for a while now. What you are looking at in that section of the review is the application of a tone curve. Of course the DR range of a sensor cannot be changed by deliberately underexposing a shot or processing an image. Besides the sensor doesn't have a DR of >13EV as suggested by the DR400 curve. DPReviews should make that more clear.
@gsum: Since the encoded data aren't linear, the DR of a JPEG is higher than 8 stops, somewhere around 11 stops. As a consequence, though, some region(s) are compressed somewhat. The Fuji DR expansion functionality compresses the midrange for a smoother roll-off at the extremes.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 2, 2013)

How can you judge DR from samples? I'm curious.

0 upvotes
standor
By standor (Mar 2, 2013)

Excelent guide to expanded dynamic range of Fuji cameras is here:
http://www.fujirumors.com/how-to-expand-dynamic-range/

0 upvotes
tipple
By tipple (Mar 2, 2013)

I must have missed something. What did Fuji do wrong? After all, ken Rockwell will tell you that it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

3 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 2, 2013)

We if Ken says it.........

7 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 2, 2013)

Just for the record, and for all the people here whose opinions are so important (to them), I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. Make that around 10 so far.

So, if you don't like a camera for the simple reason that DPR likes it more that yours, there are three possible reasons....

1. They were considering the target user, not you. It's perfectly possible a more left field camera (Sigma DP1?) may actually work perfectly for you because the cons don't matter and the pros do - to YOU. Go for it. I respect your choice.
2. You don't understand how the reviews are conducted and the significance of the findings and conclusions. This seems pretty common judging by the comments.
3. You really need to grow up. No-one cares if you don't own the best camera in the world, or if you are insecure about making the "wrong" choice.

Just take photographs.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
39 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Mar 2, 2013)

The last line is really it.

People need to appreciate and realize the time we are in. The fact that some of the best cameras of today's age are ripped apart reflects a short term memory.

It's an exciting time to be a photographer, lots of amazing tools to choose from. Tools we couldn't really imagine not too long ago. How many people shot ISO 6400 film? Exactly... it was generally 3200 or 1600, and loaded with grain.

Sure, focusing could be improved on mirrorless cameras, but guess what, that's happening. Most of the manufacturers are adopting various PDAF techniques. Sure beats out purely manual rangefinder mechanisms (for the masses at least).

Fuji released a solid addition to an exciting and emerging market. Guess what, the next Sony, or Olympus, or Samsung, or Canon, or Nikon, or Ricoh, or whatever will probably be better in some, or many, or even all ways. Competition benefits us all in the end.

So yeah, enjoy it, go out and shoot, there's great tools to use.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
19 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 2, 2013)

57, So you criticise others for having a contrary opinion to yours based on the facts that are in front of all of us, but it turns out you are just defending your own buying decision. And you conclude that others need to grow up. Right......

Fact is, it's hard choosing cameras when you can't handle them first and when the manufacturers are blinding us with ever more complex spec sheets and when internet sites are letting us compare pixel differences that wouldn't show up in normal use. And to make it worse we all know there will an improved version along next month. So yeah, people get passionate about things. Just like you are.

Frankly all I really need is to see the IQ and these Fuji things take weird looking pics, to my eyes. Surprise, surprise your opinion may differ.

1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Mar 2, 2013)

"I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. " ------------------ Really. I give you one from top off my head. In one of reviews of Sony camera DPR found that having two memory slots is a con. Now let me know how you find having two memory slots is less helpful then having just one.

2 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 2, 2013)

zxaar, it is in the case of the 5D mk III, where if you have a card in both the CF slot and the SD slot, it writes to each card using the slowest of the two cards' speeds.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Mar 2, 2013)

@Jade it was an old sony camera, at that point in time no other camera maker had two slots. This became a pro when canon (or perhaps nikon) introduced two slots. It was absurd from dpr and lots of people in sony forum cretisized them.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Funny, I had a A100, A700 and A900 and I can't recall the controversy. I do recall that the Sony implementation of two slots in the A900 was rubbish given you had to write to one slot or the other and couldn't use one card for jpegs. Maybe that's what dpr were referring to...

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Mar 2, 2013)

57even,

DPR called Olympus's implementation of live view, one of the first (the first?) on a digital camera, "a problem looking for a solution", or something along those lines. Now every camera implements live view. DPR's opinions about the validity of features are not always insightful.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Mar 2, 2013)

Look, you all can find things you disagree with, but look back through the review and there is usually a good reason for what they said.

But lets get one thing totally straight - I value THEIR opinion more that YOURS.

Got that?

0 upvotes
Joed700
By Joed700 (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm surprised by how this camera received the Gold Award! I was planning on getting this camera but the fact that it requires occasionally reboots changed my mind. I would think that issue like this should had been resolved before Fujifilm starting charging its customers $1,000 for a beta version of their product. Let's hope a firmware update will follow soon.

5 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 2, 2013)

Never had to reboot once. Maybe some strange circumstances, but all you do is switch off and on.

9 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

I think I've had my E-M5 freeze twice on me too. Not really a big issue as long as a power toggle clears it

2 upvotes
Mr Sincere
By Mr Sincere (Mar 2, 2013)

I think "requires occasional reboots" is probably overstating the issue, by quite a bit. If you hop on over to the Fuji forum, you'll see approximately... zero... mentions of this supposed issue, and quite a few people surprised to see it mentioned in the review (since it's never been mentioned as an issue before).

For what it's worth, I've never had a crash on my X-E1, or anything happened that required a reboot.

5 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 2, 2013)

I asked about the crashing in the Fuji forum as I hadn't experienced it on my X-E1. There weren't any crashes reported by others. And we are a quite critical bunch and aren't bashful about our cameras. Perhaps there was something wrong with the specimen DPR had. Besides, none of the myriad of other reviews reported any crashes, AFAIK. Don't read just this review; read them all, and you'll get a much more complete picture as things tend to even out and become more unbiased across many reviews.

8 upvotes
nonicks
By nonicks (Mar 2, 2013)

Never need to reboot my X-E1. Where did you read the complaints? I follow the fuji X-series forums, news, reviews frequently but this has never been reported as a common problem. Point me to the source ...Or did someone just make up something?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Joed700
By Joed700 (Mar 2, 2013)

@nonicks - "The camera crashed on occasion (it wouldn't be a new X-series camera if it didn't have some bugs...), leaving buttons unresponsive, and focus and exposure sometimes delivered odd results, but powering off usually cleared the error. " This is a direct quote from the conclusion page... Anyhow, I've been using various point and shoot and DSLRs from both Canon and Nikon and I'd never experienced crashes on any sort from them, and that's why I find it odd to see this review.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 2, 2013)

It is my opinion DPR should have asked for a new sample if the one they tested was having these issues, especially the exposure problems they reported. That way they could tell if it was just their sample or if there was likely a problem with all/more of them. It seems DPR just gave the EX-1 a gold award on the assumption that these rather serious problems either were isolated to their camera or would be worked out in the future without doing even the most basic thing of trying a different sample to test their assumptions.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Mar 2, 2013)

I've owned this camera for four months and I've never had to reboot it.

1 upvote
Joed700
By Joed700 (Mar 2, 2013)

@ Josh152 - I totally agree with you that DP should request another sample. If it turns out this is a sample issue, I would think DP is being very irresponsible to include such causal comments about XE-1 having unfixed bugs and gave it a Gold Award at the same time. I really question DP's credibility in the regard!

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Mar 2, 2013)

This sample was given to dpr for reviewing, so I'm pretty sure Fuji made sure it was operating to specs before they did. That suggests to me this is not just a rare bad sample. If dpr was given a bad sample, what are my chances of getting one? Given Fuji's recent history of buggy cameras, pretty high is my guess.

I'm very impressed by the images, but the UI seems a bit weird. Not that other cameras get everything right, but Fuji made so many simple mistakes. The playback system looks comically awful. I'd be more willing to find this acceptable if the cameras weren't so expensive. Really, what makes this camera cost more than a NEX-6? The hardware is almost the same (other than the color filter). Sony has been aggressive in their pricing, but Fuji acts like they don't want to sell many of these. If it's so good, why not price it so people will at least consider itl?

0 upvotes
Joed700
By Joed700 (Mar 5, 2013)

I really couldn't resist on all the good things I heard about the Fuji Xpro-1 and XE-1, so I went to my local camera store and tried them out. I saw a used Xpro-1 with the 60mm lens for fourteen hundred; it was in excellent condition. My first question is how come the prize could drop so much? Anyhow, I tried both the Xpro and XE1 just to satisfy my curiosity. My opinion and impression on both cameras is that they are lacking in terms of user intuition when compared to the cheaper Canon S100; I love the look though. I haven't had the chance to see the actual images on my iMac, which I'm sure it would be great. See, I've been using FX DSLRs and Canon point and shoot cameras for a number of years, so the experience of using these Fuji cameras is not quite the same. For a camera that costs over 1000, I'm a bit disappointed. I guess I will wait for the next gen of XE-2 or at least the X100s' review...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 2, 2013)

KGP... when it comes to fanboys, it is really hard to top the Foveon Cult.

Anyone who ever bought a Sigma SD1 clearly doesn't pay much attention to reviews. So why start paying attention now?

Calling anyone questioning whether a particular camera deserved a Gold Award based on the flaws stated in the review itself might upset you, but it surely can't be considered an inhuman act.

2 upvotes
KGP
By KGP (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't care if there is a Foveon cult, a Bayer obssesion, a Nikon religion or a Canon fever. Just happened to like a Sigma camera thats all. Never try to convince others that Foveon sensor is #1 by flaming & trolling forums. Never try to defend Sigma's "honor" proclaiming its products as Holy Grail of imaging. Whats the point? Just works fom me, does this makes me a fanboy? I 'll be happy if an Oly, a Canon, a Holga or a Hasselblad works for you also. Then we would all have the opportunity to enjoy our hobby in its essence.

5 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Mar 2, 2013)

Phenomenal High ISO image quality. Fuji is just in its own class in this.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 2, 2013)

Especially when it's ISO sensitivities don't have anything to deal with ISO in other systems. There is no "Phenomenal High ISO image quality" - but there is "cheated ISO", and that's exactly what Fuji did in here. In fair comparison, where you look at actual exposition, not just ISO number, it suddenly comes out NEXes can do better.

1 upvote
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (Mar 2, 2013)

You should compare with the Pentax K5 IIs and then get back to me particularly the raws.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 2, 2013)

Woohoo, my X-E1 got a Gold Award. Man, awesome. I was worried for a while, but now I feel so much better about my purchase. It's some money after all. Cool! I just looked at some of my pictures again, and yeah, they do look a lot less noisy and more detailed than anything else, now that I know that they are. Happy camper here!

3 upvotes
KGP
By KGP (Mar 1, 2013)

You people maybe should start act like humans & photographers and not as Gadgetalibanious Fanboys. What if X-E1 get a Gold Award and your camera doesn't, even if you think that totally deserve it? Why do you care so much? It's juts an opinion. You should be very happy with your personal Gold Awarded camera instead of whining in dp forums. You should be out taking photos isntead of trying to convince others about your "Gold Award" choice. I have a Sigma DP1. Ιn objective terms its a useless monolithic brick, certainly far from Gold or even Bronze Award. I dont f*cking care, its my personal Gold Awarded camera and the one that has given me the most beautiful & enjoyable photographic moments, because less is more philosophy suit my needs.
Tests, graphs, samples, specs, numbers, are all there, not only in dpreview's site, compare, analyze and make your decision, as long as you believe that the only way to evaluate a camera is stuff like that. I choose washing machines that way.

52 upvotes
TWIZEEL
By TWIZEEL (Mar 2, 2013)

I wanted to write a comment, but seeing your realized that you've already said it all. So I just have to click the "like" button : ))

7 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Mar 2, 2013)

Agree with you..

3 upvotes
Ariston
By Ariston (Mar 1, 2013)

oh my. this is getting ridiculous. a lot of pointless brand bashing just because the camera got a gold star.you people should be more concerned shooting with your equipment rather than cry about a camera for getting an honor. are people here that pathetic?

30 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Mar 2, 2013)

DPR Concludes...

"The camera crashed on occasion, leaving buttons unresponsive, and focus and exposure sometimes delivered odd results..." And how about that subpar AF? If this is gold performance, they may as well bestow that pointless honor on every camera.

5 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

NEX AF is far worse in my experience (NEX-5N and 7, it's probably improved with their PDAF cameras). They cannot AF accurately for toffee in low light (but they will tell you they have)...

Frankly, comments like Jimmy's just suck of sour grapes. Or they just suck

12 upvotes
Ariston
By Ariston (Mar 2, 2013)

@sgoldswo, I completely agree. not to mention pointlessly shallow.

5 upvotes
Gail44
By Gail44 (Mar 1, 2013)

Thank you for a nice review! I love my X-E1!

Had the Nex-7 And OMD. Both great cameras, I wish I could mix these cameras into one great camera, but had to decide. The image quality of the Fuji won me over (JPEG SOOC). Now my 40D is up for sale and the canon lenses are already sold. A very nice camera to even if it maybe a little long in the tooth.

8 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 1, 2013)

I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 1, 2013)

Forget about classic lenses as OM. Digital is different. Soft means: Not fit for use. Either sell the classics or store them without further benefits to you. Find peace to write it off. Times that are a changing.

2 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Mar 1, 2013)

The default settings both for jpegs and in RAW for the X-Trans is softer than many competitors. It's easy enough to adjust a setting in camera, or in your RAW conversion. The details are there, don't let the default settings fool you.

5 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 1, 2013)

Why should I do that, Thomas? None of the autofocus lenses I have give me the same results when it comes to colour rendition, and the OMs can be at least as sharp as my "digital" lenses. Plus they help me learn about photographing techniques in a way no other lenses do. The hands-on experience of shooting with manual focus lenses helped me having a better understanding of exposure, focus and depth of field. It is unwise to write things off just because they're not flavour of the month. It's like the option between automatic or manual gearboxes in cars: the latter feel more like the 'real thing'.
It was exactly because I believe softness is hard to accept with digital, autofocus equipment, that I bashed the Fuji X-E1. If some degree of sofness is tolerable with older equipment, with today's gear it isn't.
If your intention was to quote Bob Dylan's (whose music is rather antiquated...) album title, you got it wrong: it's «the times they are a'changin'» - a fact I'm completely aware of.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 1, 2013)

Well, it is unwise to write something off based on a flawed review. Flawed in this particular aspect, not the whole review overall. There is no blurriness in the images from the X-Trans. Like Asylum Photo said above, it's a simple software setting. You should really download the RAW files and mess with them yourself, instead of taking stuff that's written at face value.

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 1, 2013)

So it is the review, not the camera, that is flawed... that's new!

0 upvotes
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (Mar 2, 2013)

Neither the review nor the camera are flawed. DPR produce comparison images at default settings. Adobe use very low default sharpening settings with Fuji RAWs. Therefore any images using those default settings will look blurry. This is DPRs standard methodology. Not a flaw. Silkypix and Capture One and indeed Adobe once people can be bothered moving the sliders all produce Fuji files with excellent detail and resolution. This is discussed by DPr themselves at great length and in many places on the net. What´s more likely? a vast conspiracy by Fuji, fanboys and expert reviewers to praise across the board the detail and IQ of Fuji cameras or what I´ve described above? But then who needs the experience of real users and reviewers eh? you know best. And no I´m not a fanboy, it just annoys me when people spout and repeat things that are demonstrably, empirically false. Same with creationists and climate change deniers.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 2, 2013)

Whether it's described in detail at DPR or not, I consider that particular test to be a flaw in their review process. Or let's call it a 'suboptimal approach'. Judging IQ based on default settings of a software that may or may not adequately support a given camera is of little value, except to those who apply default values. IMHO, IQ should be judged based on best achievable IQ, so that anyone can see what's possible. The way DPR executes the test, it often says more about the software used than about the camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 3, 2013)

It disgusts me to see such depreciative replies. I wrote I loved the camera, albeit with some relevant reservations, but fanboyism is just like this: "this camera is perfect and anyone who doesn't think alike is a fool". This kind of mentality is way beyond my understanding.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 1, 2013)

What a great camera.

Covers the best rangefinders going digital, and the greatest of Fuji lenses. Bravo

7 upvotes
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't understand why a sensor that does not have a Bayer array and therefore does not need an anti-aliasing filter generates raw files that are less than sharp. I though the whole point of Fuji's sensor was to improve resolution (which is connected to sharpness, at least in my mind).

Is there less of a link between perceived sharpness and resolution than I think?

Perhaps someone who's able to provide a technical explanation would weigh in here??

2 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm repeating myself here, and probably a few more times as I go down the list. The softness is due to the software setting used. It's not an intrinsic property of the sensor. At least not to the extent visible in the review's images. I would recommend downloading the raw files and playing with them yourself.

5 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (Mar 2, 2013)

The raw files are not what's not sharp. It's the raw interpreters' inability to adequately demosaic an X-Trans sensor. Adobe and Capture One's latest interpreters do far better than their past efforts. The camera is able to output better JPEGs from raw files than even Fujifilm's own Silkypix-based raw converter. See this story for more: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

as well as this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested

4 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 2, 2013)

@Shawn Bernett - @R Butler said the softness was the lenses fault. Apparently the 35mm lens used was not so good for the task. I thought Adobe fixed the RAW conversion issue?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, hopefully, Silkypix's software that comes with it can do a credible job, otherwise you will have to fork out another $300 on top of the camera for Capture One. Capture One Express is only $100 or so, I figure it must have the same converter so not so bad.

0 upvotes
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (Mar 2, 2013)

Ok, so you folks are saying the sensor IS producing sharp images, and the ACR conversion is the problem. That's certainly plausible. Thanks.

0 upvotes
nonicks
By nonicks (Mar 2, 2013)

If you are looking for the best performing raw converter tool for the fuji X, I vote for Capture One. The udpated Adobe tools are very good too.

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Mar 2, 2013)

@shawn
Anyway, the details are still noticeably worse than with bayer filter

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 2, 2013)

Wildcat2 - I said no such thing.

The 35mm lens means the X-E1's scene has shallower depth-of-field than most APS-C cameras (since they're shot from further back). That does not mean the 35mm is soft or contributes to softness. It simply means that the areas of the scene that aren't relevant to testing are even further out-of-focus.

1 upvote
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 2, 2013)

@ R Butler - I thought we just said the same thing and that was absolutely my intent. The 35mm lens used was not good, or not the best, for the task of shooting a static display that had been apparently set up for 50mm. I didnt say and didnt mean to imply that the lens was not sharp, just that it was "not so good for the task."
It might help if the fact that it was shot with a 35mm instead of the usual 50mm was put in the review considering multiple people have mentioned being confused by the disconnect between what they see in the test shots and what they read in the analysis.

0 upvotes
Danguyfuji
By Danguyfuji (Mar 1, 2013)

Most of these comments are mostly from people that just don't get it. Raw files are NOT supposed to be finished when they come right from camera. Thats the point. You make them in raw converter. Sharpnes on all files are minimum you have to add it. I will rather have my file in raw a bit smooth, than over sharpened raw files like the ones we see from most of the other cameras. You can ad sharpnes, not remove it! It seems like most of the people on these comments have a lot of gear. They have nikon canon sony olympus pentax fuji. They know eksakly which one is better than the other, because they have all these cameras to compare. I would like to have that much money. I work with canon-nikon-fuji files on a daily basis, and there is no doubt, that when it comes to IQ the fuji is excelent! Fast, no. Weather seal, no.Lot of lenses, no. At these point nikon and canon are better. In my case, for my work, IQ is no 1 and I will live with the bad things.You can't find one camera that has it all

9 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Mar 1, 2013)

Honest question: why can't you remove sharpness? Isn't it possible to use something like weak Gaussian blur to make image a bit softer?

1 upvote
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Mar 1, 2013)

Dangyfuji you are totally wrong sharpness = detail, its as simple as that, you cant make detail (other than that fabricated by a sharpening algorithm) by sharpening in PP, it is there and depends on sharpness and contrast in the raw image. I would say that its you that doesn't get it.

0 upvotes
Danguyfuji
By Danguyfuji (Mar 1, 2013)

Honest: I can't explain it (not that good in english). But try take a smooth picture like Fuji, make it at bit sharper than you normaly wouldt do. Then turn it back to the smoth picture, using any tool in ex. Ps. It's just not the same. In captureOne and ps, you have the option to use clarity. That is a very good tool to ad sharpnes. Together with sharpness of course :-)

0 upvotes
Aeturnum
By Aeturnum (Mar 1, 2013)

Both sharpening and blurring an image removes information. Both operations remove bits of information to emphasize certain qualities.

Sharpness does not equal detail. Imagine a picture of a knife blade. The edge of the knife ends half way through a pixel. The most accurate rendition of that pixel has some light from the knife and some from the background. However, to our eyes, that looks wrong. If we sharpen the image, we create a clear division between the knife blade and the background by pushing the pixel towards the color of the knife or the color of the background.

The image with the most detail is the image directly from the sensor (i.e. an unprocessed RAW). Any sharpening applied to that data will remove information, but also (usually) make the image look better. This is an inevitable consequence of representing a continuous medium (reality) with a discreet medium (image sensor pixels).

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 1, 2013)

'sharpness = detail' must be one of the top-ten myths.

8 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Mar 2, 2013)

Nixda you fail to explain why it is a myth. You are of course incorrect. Sharpness is a function of contrast and resolution. If the raw image contains good per pixel contrast and resolution then the image is sharp and the best you can work with. Aeturnum is correct that PP sharpening and blurring take information away but his comment is disingenuous. Out of camera sharpness represents actual detail that was captured its captured information NOT lost information. If an image has lower sharpness then empirically it captures less detail... I had an XE and it had no problem with sharpness at all it was the unusual aberrations in many images that I didn't like

0 upvotes
Aeturnum
By Aeturnum (Mar 2, 2013)

Out of lens sharpness is actual detail. Out of camera sharpness is often modified by the camera's settings. Thus why I mentioned the unprocessed RAW output.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 2, 2013)

Sharpness is a characteristic of detail in a photograph, but it's not equivalent to detail. If the details are clear, then there is high sharpness. If the same details are washed out a bit but the information content is still the same, then sharpness is reduced. Sharpness is largely independent of detail (in a photograph, and that's what we are talking about). Sharpness just tells us how we perceive detail. A photo could actually be less sharp than another one but still contain more information.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 1, 2013)

Too bad this little gem does not include an IBIS. It would be a killer as a lot of lenses already avaible could then become usable. Is IBIS incompatible with the X-Trans CMOS sensor ? Could be...

1 upvote
nonicks
By nonicks (Mar 2, 2013)

Agree. But hopefully it will introduce OIS to some of the up coming fixed lenses.

1 upvote
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (Mar 2, 2013)

or IBIS is just patented technology and they haven´t found a way round it? The roadmap zooms all feature OIS. Most companies don´t use IBIS. It would be nice to have, though personally my own experiences have been mixed. (admittedly not with using better examples like that of the latest Oly)

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 2, 2013)

Maybe. There are two companies well known for their use of the IBIS system: Pentax and Olympus, yet Fujifilm seems to b ewilling to use it too in its next FinePix F900EXR. That's a hint Fujifilm is begining to have an eye on that technology too.

Of course, Fujifilm could think offering to its customers the possibility to use other lens makers unities would make it lose a lot of money... That said, if Fujifilm doesn't sell soon a reasonable long (stabilized) zoom for its X-models, I fear many would-be-customers will definitely choose another camera with a larger choice of lenses.

0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (Mar 1, 2013)

There are a lot of strange angry tribal gear heads here today.

The Nikonistas rant, the Canonites whine and hoorah, the Sonyettes bitch and the Olympusonians whimper.

Any photographers visiting just leave the site and go somewhere else.

15 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Mar 1, 2013)

These forums are outlets for, barring few photography enthusiasts, forever adolescents who are in to bashing, beating, walking all over something who would other wise have been serial killers.

10 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 1, 2013)

And don't forget the Pentaxists, the Casionoisseurs, the Fujifilmers, the Leicaniacs, the Samsungowers... what a headache !

2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 1, 2013)

There are a lot of people who feel very insecure about their decisions.

11 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 1, 2013)

I think it's a useful place, if the Pentax poster below hadn't done his research I might have thought I was alone in thinking the Fuji IQ was very poor, then I might have been seduced by its looks and those sexy dials and bought one!

IQ That's how I make my decisions ultimately.

3 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 1, 2013)

Well if you can somehow get Ken Rockwell to open up a forum, I'll go over there and say a thing er 2, about thing er 2. ;)

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 1, 2013)

Ha ha, a Ken Rockwell forum! That really would be a riot! Just imagine the insanity his opinions would cause in gearheads the world over.

He speaks more sense about cameras than most of the rest of the net put together. Except this one but then he admits the pics look unique, no accounting for taste obviously.

0 upvotes
lighthunter80
By lighthunter80 (Mar 2, 2013)

For many photography as hobby is more about the gear than the actual images is my impression. A camera is for many just a status symbol and every new model makes the own gear suddenly worthless and they crave for the newest, latest...

Actually who _really_ cares if camera X is better at ISO 6400 than camera Y? For 95% of applications ISO 3200 is enough and meanwhile even small sensor and entry models are good at higher ISO.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 2, 2013)

lighthunter80, you are 100% right. But about the "ISO 3200 thing", I would say it's supremely useful when one cannot afford to buy some fast lenses, and while there are nowadays much more cameras that are quite good at that ISO value, there are not so many of them to be very good at it.

For the rest, we are on the same line.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Mar 3, 2013)

I would respectfully disagree about ISO 3200 being sufficient for low light photography. In my experience even with some ambient light(Street lights, shop windows etc.) subject moderately mobile f2.8 doesn't give you enough speed to reasonably freeze the action or well lit subject. I think ISO 6400 is needed for street photography at night.

0 upvotes
edm78
By edm78 (Mar 1, 2013)

I am sure the x-e1 is a fine camera but looking at the comparison page my K-01 seems to beat the fuji in IQ. The k-01 go bashed by almost everyone for its aesthetics but I think this is a good example of "don't judge a book by its cover". And at almost a quarter of the price of the x-e1 it looks like I got a bargain.

3 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

and it's probably still trying to focus on your first shot...

The only camera to make the X-Pro1 look like usain bolt ;-)

1 upvote
edm78
By edm78 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yes, but when it does get finally focus, after 4 hours or so, ;) I get a shot like this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eddiemoya/8355969553/in/photostream

Not bad for a camera that cost about 5 times less.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 2, 2013)

Keep it if it fits your expectations. It's so rare to meet people who are satisfied by their gear. Congratulation if you have found the tool that makes you feel when shooting, that's how one can produce some nice pictures that reflect their skill and their sensibility.

Note: I would be interested in finding a forum where men discuss how they feel good and bad about the woman they are married to, the way some people here discuss about cameras. All new, all bright !

0 upvotes
Conjure
By Conjure (Mar 1, 2013)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50953314

But I do not believe that dpreview had evil intentions.
Everywhere mistakes can happen.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

:D Muahahahaha.
Seriously: That's the best review of a review I've EVER SEEN!

Can't wait for comment from dPreview on that (if they dare to admit miserable defeat on all fronts)!

3 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Mar 1, 2013)

Dpreview is a fail nowadays ...

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 1, 2013)

That forum post is entertainingly written but actually most of the points fall down if seen in context. I've posted a response to his review of our review.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

@RButler - I appreciate the response. I might not agree with it but I appreciate it.

2 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (Mar 3, 2013)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50954807

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Mar 1, 2013)

Gold award ????

I guess Fuji will buy a lots of ads in the future.

13 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 1, 2013)

Why was this review re-posted today when it came out days ago?
New info?
Mistake?
Sadistic pleasure?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 1, 2013)

The review was published less than 24 hours ago and we didn't want it to get buried by news stories we think will be of interest to fewer people.

9 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 1, 2013)

Or are we in Groundhog Day ? Big news then, tomorrow there will be a "full review of the Fujifilm X-E1" !

3 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

Great camera.

Except when it crashes....or when it wont focus....or when you have to shoot jpg because RAW converters doent work....

The lens selection is limited, but expensive.......

Nice an compact...until you put a lens on it.....the included lens makes it unbalanced....

You can use lots of old lenses....with an adapter....which makes it not compact

Beautiful screen.....in 2005

Great value....just a little less than a D600

13 upvotes
Bijan Alpha
By Bijan Alpha (Mar 1, 2013)

i sold it after testing it with acr 7.4
even with acr 7.4 details are weird and painterly
and one more funny fact is that in manual mode histogram (the main tools for exposure decisions in this camera) isn't accurate and it only working fine in A & S modes !)

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Ca*k, Pure and simple. Your comment that is. All of it is untrue or inaccurate. Try this (converted from RAW in Capture One) for size:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8388236325_be8e43afc5_o.jpg

2 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Mar 1, 2013)

DPR Writes...

"The camera crashed on occasion, leaving buttons unresponsive, and focus and exposure sometimes delivered odd results..."

DPR loves to give away the gold. Too bad it's FOOLS gold!

10 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Mar 1, 2013)

The real gold camera: http://tinyurl.com/2ddlufe

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Mar 1, 2013)

+ pro camera
+ gold star
+ crappy AF
= WTF?

15 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

I've heard the AF isn't too hot on a Leica M9 either...

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 1, 2013)

I just don't like the pictures, does anyone else think they look weird? Kind of soft and pale, must be the revolutionary sensor pattern.

10 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 1, 2013)

Where are the "equivalent aperture" trolls?

5 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (Mar 1, 2013)

Busy bashing the AF, or the sensor design.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

How about "equivalent ISO" ?
When Fuji will finally learn how to do maths?

2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 1, 2013)

@Plastek

Same time Olympus do I guess. ISOs approximately match their films oddly enough.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Mar 1, 2013)

Took alook at the exif of the ISO800 picture:
Fuji 35mm f8 1/125 ISO800
Nex 5N 50mm f8 1/200 ISO800

So the Fuji appears to be 3/4 EV less light sensitive in reality
(false ISO calibration)

3 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 1, 2013)

And that's a fact described in the review, did you read it?

6 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 2, 2013)

It's even listed as a con on the Conclusion page for the TL;DR crowd...

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 1, 2013)

Cameras can be rated by objective measures (like AF speed and accuracy, Dynamic Range, ISO capability, lines of resolution, etc.) but there will always be a subjective element involved. We sometimes fall in love with a camera, and when we do that we tend to overlook the flaws and emphasize the good things.

I remember around six years ago Phil Askey reviewed the Leica M8. He found numerous flaws with it, and objectively rated it as "recommended" which was just about the LOWEST rating Dpreview was using at that time. Despite this, he loved using the camera, so he immediately went out and bought one with his own money. And it certainly wasn't a cheap camera to buy.

I think something like that has happened here. The Fuji X-E1 is a very nice camera that produces really great image quality. It is exceptionally well built, there are some very nice lenses for it, and despite all the stated flaws, it is probably a joy to use.

Hence... the Gold Award. I call it emotional grade inflation.

18 upvotes
nikoj
By nikoj (Mar 1, 2013)

Agree, there has to be some reserve in the reviews for the whole experience of the camera, not just the clinical facts

3 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't really understand the whole idea behind these "Awards", that's why I never actually scroll down to that part of "Conclusion" page, perhaps I'll do it sometimes to click through to "Image samples" page. Why get so wind up on some numbers? DP-Reviews ;) are about what's inside, written on all these pages, and all that goes through my own subjective viewpoint on both my priorities when it comes to making a judgement on a camera/system and on the methods DPrev is using. Perhaps if someone is new to this place, he needs a number to tell him how the things look. But for somebody who's been around here for the last 8-10 years is it really that important? Even if the numbers are biased, the wording is not, although you sometimes need to read between the lines, so to speak, as with the ACR7.4 performance on X-Trans files. With various needs and various uses there is really very little sense of getting worked up with a universal scoreboard for gear... That's of course just my opinion.

3 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Mar 1, 2013)

Since the camera's crashing and buggy behavior didn't get mentioned in the "cons", I have to agree that the rating is emotional. Fuji cameras have always been quirky, and some people love them anyway. In fact, there's a certain outsider appeal to Fuji cameras that would be diminished in a camera that wasn't a little cantankerous.

1 upvote
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (Mar 1, 2013)

The goal of any review is to evaluate a device's suitability to its purpose. When there are flaws, we will mention them. When there are high points, we will mention those too. We do our best to rate and quantify, but in the end, the award is subjective, not the product of a strict mathematical calculation. The ratings bars help you determine what we thought of a given feature. If, for example, Movie mode is extremely important to you, you'll see what we thought of it relative to other aspects of the camera.

Try to remember that the result is what that reviewer, or team of reviewers, thought of the camera. Not just how it performed compared to the hundreds of other cameras we've reviewed, but what we thought of it. DPReview isn't a computer or a monolith, it's a collection of people who love photography and really like cameras. We do try to prepare a review that is as consistent as it can be, but our main goal is to let readers know what we thought as honestly as possible. (cont below)

4 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (Mar 1, 2013)

I wouldn't call it emotional grade inflation. The fact is, we gave the X-Pro1 a silver award, but the X-E1 a gold award. In the time between the two reviews, Fujifilm has made noticeable improvements. As the main reviewer on this camera, I weighed those elements, as well as the bugs I encountered. I decided the bugs were occasionally annoying, but not enough of a problem to keep me from liking and recommending the camera. Its features, image quality and design outweighed the occasional quirk. Would you have preferred I left my experience with those bugs out of the review? Wouldn't that make me biased, as people are so often fond of claiming? I gave you the tale of my experience, I showed you some of my photos, I discussed the things that led to our conclusion. Now you can make your own conclusion based on what you glean from my experience. That's the point of a review. I can't claim you'll think the same thing as I do if you use it; I can only hope my thoughts will be of use.

8 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

@Shawn Barnett - "the award is subjective, not the product of a strict mathematical calculation. The ratings bars help you determine what we thought of a given feature."

No issue with that...until you do comparison. Clearly you invite comparison between cameras because you cooked in as a tool for ratings bar section. That leads to at a minimum an assumption that ratings of one camera are objective enough to compare directly with the ratings of another camera. For example if the D4 is the only camera capable of capturing usable images at ISO 51200 then the "Low Light/High ISO" bar for every other camera should be below the D4. When, for example the D7000 is rated lower that the X-E1 despite the X-E1 topping out at ISO 6400 in RAW and the D7000 producing acceptable images at 12800, the objective comparison falls apart.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 2, 2013)

Shawn... The X-E1 is probably a wonderful camera. And most of us would love to own it. The whole question is whether it should have gotten you highest Gold Award.

Almost all the people who are commenting here have never touched this camera, but you have. So we are basing our opinions on your own words. And the problem is the inconsistency in your review finding major flaws with the camera, then giving it a Gold Award.

These are not minor niggles. These are serious flaws that really matter to many consumers.

From your review:

* "the drive mode button occasionally stopped working"
* "exposure comp dial rotates by accident."
* "inconsistent burst rate"
* "built in level isn't as accurate as we would like"
* "less than stellar AF"
* "sub par video performance"
* "the camera crashed on occasion"

A Gold Award camera should not need "a bit of scotch tape" to keep dials from moving accidentally.

This is a great camera but it shouldn't have a Gold Award.

Emotional Grade Inflation.

5 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 2, 2013)

I did touch the camera.
It does not deserve to have a Gold award.
The reviewers here transferred a 'Lieca' mentality to Fuji.
Plain amd simple.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Mar 1, 2013)

Well, I don't see the "great jpeg" IQ that DPR sees. There's a definite softening of detail even at base ISO, compared to the other cameras included. RAW is even worse. Am I the only one seeing it that way?

6 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 1, 2013)

I like a lot of things about DPR...just not the reviews. These days with so many "relationships" (narrator winks twice) and "monopolies" (more winks), I simply do not believe that the scores are completely objective. I find it best to take as many carefully selected reviews on the whole, then decide if I want to try the camera out for myself (not an option for those of you in the UK, I understand but it IS an option for us here stateside). IMO, you really just don’t know until you shoot with it yourself. First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras.
DPR: Is there a link available that explains the DPR review process in 2013? The stuff I found in FAQs dates back to the days of Highly Recommended down to Poor which is of no use to me today.

9 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 1, 2013)

@photog4u

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

0 upvotes
G Sciorio
By G Sciorio (Mar 1, 2013)

Don't forget that DPreview is not for photographers. It's for gear heads, the reviews and forum are proof as such. I'm not saying this is a bad thing it's just how DPR is.

Still though no site digs deeper into reviews like DPR does but for a real-world perspective talk to the pros that shoot with the gear.

5 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Mar 1, 2013)

>> First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras. <<

Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.

Anyway, have fun with those two cameras.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (Mar 1, 2013)

I similarly don't see any (and often softer) sharper results on the Jpeg comparison page; the words don't really match the results; and not sure rationale behind caveat of comparing to only cameras of "similar pixel count"? Why would you limit your comparison in such a way?

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 1, 2013)

@photog4u Don't forget that price and target audience are a large factor in the overall score, so I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in a X-E1 v RX1 comparison?

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 1, 2013)

@Managarm: >>Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.<<

That is EXACTLY my point! Anyone coming to this site without understanding how it works may automatically assume that based on the "NUMBERS" that the X-E1 will give them an RX1 experience for half price. That is one of the many reasons I don't care for the reviews here or at least the scoring aspect of them. So in effect, the RX1 becomes the loss leader (SCORE-wise, not price wise) to drive sales of lessor cameras. If I were Amazon, I’d be OK with it.

2 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

Dont you know soft focus is all the rage? So hip and Holga like.

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Mar 1, 2013)

>> First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras. <<

You don't realize how completely absurd this is?

"I have a great camera, and rather than take photographs with it I'm reading a review of another camera that I don't own and I'm getting upset that this camera is getting a higher score than my camera because I don't believe it deserves it."

Go for a walk.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks for chiming in doc and now that I'm back from my walk let me just that your knuckle dragging interpretation of my scribe is what is absurd. Juice some kale to help wake up some of your dormant grey matter...or lay off the weed.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes, so many Fuji haters...I don't have Fuji because I can admit I can't afford it...for the rest of you, what did Canon, Nikon etc do for you recently?
(Nikon 1, Canon EOS M, Pentax K Q...) feel sorry for you, you are crying on the wrong web site!!!!!

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Mar 1, 2013)

From Nikon: D4, D800, D600, D3200, D5200, D7100 plus a bunch of lenses, some flashes, and misc. accessories.

4 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Mar 1, 2013)

For me Nikon did the very affordable D7100, the affordable yet stunning 85mm f/1.8, the 70-200 f/4 VR, etc...

Those lenses might not be flashy, but they are a hell of a lot sharper than those Fuji lenses!!!

2 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

Hmm..My K-5 takes sharp pictures, has tons of lenses to choose from, hasn't crashed and focuses well. My K-01 does the same in roughly the same form factor. And my K200 has blown past its expected shutter count while being dragged through two war zones. Oh and my K-5 and K-01 combined cost less than the Fuji. yeah Im good with Pentax.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Mar 1, 2013)

They aren't Fuji haters, they are trolls who couldn't tell a pixel from a pixie. Nor are they able to come up with any amusing or creative comments.
As for your own comment, it's a bit different from the usual but still only scores 2/10.

6 upvotes
E.J.
By E.J. (Mar 1, 2013)

I like this kind of camera but the lens is just way too bulky for what it is. Personally, I'm looking forward to trying an X100s - takes e back to my first serious camera in 1972 - the Yashica Rangefinder with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens.

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

Your right, most cameras are out of balance with the weight mostly at the front, so a shallow lens lessens the effect. Another awkwardness is viewfinders in the middle, one always sees snappers squashing their faces against camera backs.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

No OVF, no deal for me.
Wish Fuji would release X-100 with interchangeable lenses...

3 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

Maybe that's close to what the rumored x-m1 for April release will be, optical viewfinder only - with simple frame and info overlay.

0 upvotes
Narupol
By Narupol (Mar 1, 2013)

I think the camera that you looking for is Fujifilm X-Pro1, the big brother camera of X-E1. They have the same interchangeable lenses system. But the X-Pro1 has OVF.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

Narupol - X-Pro 1 looks great on paper, in reality it's crap.It should be granted as an example on "how to spoil potentially brilliant camera". I don't give a s*** about specifications, what matters is how camera works like in field and X-PRO1 behaves worse than an entry-level DSLR.
I hope that they actually go back to design board and make X-pro 2 from scratch (as well as fire those ****** who wrote firmware for X-PRO 1). If they do: my money awaits.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Plastek you are going to have to explain to me how the X-Pro1 is crap I'm afraid. I've found it gives image quality little short of a Leica M9 for a lot less money. Generally I don't find that crap. I had quite a successful evening shooting a charity launch with one plus an EF-42 flash. Much better results than my last FF DSLR. Again, I would find that hard to bracket as "crap"...

1 upvote
stevielee
By stevielee (Mar 2, 2013)

@Plastek
". I don't give a s*** about specifications, what matters is how camera works like in field and X-PRO1 behaves worse than an entry-level DSLR."

And isn't that the crux of why so many primarily DSLR'er seemed so flummoxed by a decidedly non-DSLR like camera such as Fuji's X-Pro 1 - simply because it doesn't "behave" like one - as if it was ever supposed to.

I came to the X-Pro 1 from a FF Canon 5D II - never once expecting my new Fuji to "behave" (perform) as my 5D II did - knowing full well that they would be very different shooting experiences altogether.

This increasingly irrational demand that all photographic imaging tools must somehow "behave" pretty much as a spray&pray DSLR (entry & above), is getting tiresome and misses the point of what some of these newer (DSLR) alternatives offer: being smaller, lighter, perhaps requiring a more deliberate "in the field" shooting style, but is still capable of producing as good (if not better than) DSLR level image quality.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Mar 1, 2013)

So much hate for the xe-1, you would think it kicked these people's dogs. Intresting enough, most of the 'haters' seem to be NEX folks. Personally I couldn't stand using the NEX. It was the most uninspiring camera I've ever used. No soul. But to each their own.
And to the people going on & on about the soft raw output- for the 100th time- it's because of the acr *default* settings. When adjusted it rivals any aps-c & some FF's.
Adobe just launched full raw support less than a week ago. Just wait till it gets tweaked.
Sheesh you guys,

12 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Mar 1, 2013)

I agree with you about the Nex. They seem to be excellent cameras, but "uninspiring" is a good word. Kind of like they should come in generic white with a black bar code, and "Camera" stamped at an angle on the side.

Not that my GH2 is inspiring, either. It's pretty pedestrian too.

I like this Fuji. But I'm done spending this much money on a camera. m43 has changed the equation. You can get almost as good IQ for much less money. I don't particularly care about ISO 1 zillion. Sure, I'd love my GH2 to do as well as this camera at high ISO, but since I avoid shooting at high ISO as much as possible in the first place, it's not a priority.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

There are very few inspiring cameras in this days. But Fuji also got few mirrorless that are soulless, boring, "me too" kind of gear. And I doubt NEX can ever chase m4/3 cameras in competition for most uninspiring gear. Besides OM-D there's literally nothing in m4/3 I'd even consider taking into the field. Most likely I'd die of boredom what they make there.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Agree - sold my NEX-7 (no functional WA without colourcast - fail) to concentrate on my X-Pro1. Apart from the issue above it was just too much of a computer and the menus were Byzantine

1 upvote
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

I commented first and then read some of the other comments... from the images I have seen around from this camera, taken in a variety of situations, I'd have given it a Sparkling Triple Mega Platinum Award.

At au$1200 with a totally excellent 35mm metal bodied prime its a gift. I read OMD, GH3 & D7000 in some comments, are we all pointing outward on the same planet, this thing delivers D4 results minimum - for that at au$1200 with a 'magic' prime thrown in I'd be happy focusing with a mechanical crank handle on the side.

For the grumbling cash flash grandads below, Nikon and Canon full framers are really nice gear, take excellent frames - these Fuji's just look to be heck of a lot better from build/ergonomics to image quality. Doesn't make your or my gear any less, this stuff is just heaps better for the money.

Like me for the moment, live with it. :-D

4 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 1, 2013)

You like the photos then fine. I still like the output of FF sensors more than the Fuji's photos and I believe most FF cameras far outsell the Fuji.

Most people aren't terribly happy with slow AF and a camera that locks up from time to time.

No doubt, per pixel sharpness is very good indeed and high ISO capability can match any FF camera BUT IQ is not just specifications and the output of FF cameras IMO is better than what the Fuji can deliver.

0 upvotes
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

@brandon1000
AF is NOT slow! Is slow in very few situations with some lenses (60mm) in poor light and with subjects who lack contrast. It's not a DSLR speed AF but no mirrorless camera can rival DSLR's PDAF yet. AF of X-E1 is snappy and precise. Try it for yourself with last firmware update and 18-55 zomm lens and you will be surprised.

2 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

I purposely pointed to the D4 as that is the only full frame that's close to the x-trans output - even with the LightRm x-trans handicap (now solved).

Make no mistake, if Fuji deliver a Full Frame sensor x-trans offering in 2014, game over - affordable medium format quality with live view and phase detection focus for less than a d4 let alone a Hasselblad is likely to be an unmitigated success.

They could easily do this with only the technology already in the x100s.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Mar 1, 2013)

What planet are you on? The images out of the Fuji look worse than any recent APS-C Nikon.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 1, 2013)

Not the ones I have on my PC. I actually prefer most of my Fuji shots to D600 ones. But nothing like judging something without understanding, huh.

5 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Mar 1, 2013)

Another example why EVF is the future...

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Mar 1, 2013)

It is 2013...how can a $1400 camera...be loaded with all that tech. ...but not AF fast enough to catch your kids in action????????????????????????????????
How is that possible? ~:-o

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 1, 2013)

Good luck "catching your kids in action" with AF on ANY camera.

4 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Mar 1, 2013)

No problem with my 550D with 17-55mm, 50mm or even the 18-55mm it came with, thanks Sebit.

5 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Mar 1, 2013)

How come FF Leica doesn't have AF??? Use your brain and you'll find out!!!

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Mar 1, 2013)

Leica...that is HYSTERICAL.....I do use my brain...all the time...let's see..how many sports/action photographers use Leica in 2013? Zero.
That is because accurate, modern AF give you waaaaaaay more many keepers then not...compared to hand focusing or, apparently Fuji $1400 camera. Don't get me wrong...Leica is an incredible way to go...just not for action... ..Even the $400 Nikon V1 (with two lenses included) has dead-on AF...
Why defend something lame...Fuji...give us the goods!!!! No excuse! :-)

4 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 1, 2013)

JWest, you're welcome, but I'm sure it's not the AF that's making it possible. It's a ratio between your skill/situation and your definition of "catching".
With my 3y/o boy and my D700 at 7EV (home indoor lights) I'm able to pretend I'm keeping up only when I use 24/1.8 or something wider.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

@JWest
Maybe when your kids are sleeping...

3 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Mar 1, 2013)

@Sebit,

My Nikon V1 has no problem catching kids in action. A great sensor can never compesate for crappy AF.

0 upvotes
Sebit
By Sebit (Mar 1, 2013)

@Jimmy jang Boo
Yeah, on a second thought - my phone's camera is quite good at it, too. Must be the AF.

1 upvote
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

Get slower kids
:)

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (Mar 1, 2013)

Amazing detail in Hi-ISO jpegs! Kudos!

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Mar 1, 2013)

No smudge or blotching, almost all detail left.
- And all this in jpegs! Totally different league than anything else.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5639653565/photos/2450776/fuji-x-e1?inalbum=cameracomparison

1 upvote
sirkhann
By sirkhann (Mar 1, 2013)

Sigma DP Merrill, hello?

8 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Mar 1, 2013)

The Sigma DP Merrill has probably better low ISO performance, but not high ISO performance. Plus the User Interface leaves much to be desired and no replaceable lenses. However, I concur, it is an oversight the DP Merrill has never been tested here and is not available for comparison.

3 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (Mar 1, 2013)

At the very least.. you'd think DPR could add to studio comparison database with at least Jpegs available.

2 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Mar 1, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd1/19

Here are the Sigma SD-1 results. Why these aren't selectable in the general compare directory is beyond me.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (Mar 1, 2013)

quite a difference.. and the SD1 (by all accounts) is less sharp than the compact series (DP1M, 2M, 3M)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9167172104/photos/2450923/sd1vxe1snip

0 upvotes
stevielee
By stevielee (Mar 2, 2013)

@HubertChen
"The Sigma DP Merrill has probably better low ISO performance, but not high ISO performance."

Well, other than maybe having a whisker more discernible resolution at base ISO's, the Fuji's X-trans (IMO) is superior to the SD1M, or DPM's Foveon sensor in it's overall color fidelity and dynamic range - two very important image quality parameters that at least for me, trump Sigma's single parameter of perhaps having the best overall absolute resolution any day. Plus, for all of it's non-DSLR like performance shortcomings (real, or imagined), the Fuji X-Pro 1/X-E1 can run circles (performance and feature-wise) around any and all of Sigma's branded prototype beta style camera bodies.

And Fuji at least has the technological wherewithal to somewhat competently and competitively produce both their camera bodies, as well as their lenses, while Sigma has only ever really excelled in any technologically comparable terms with the latter.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

Excellent review on the camera and the lenses. :-D

3 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Mar 1, 2013)

See all that lovely new tech in the X100S?

That's going to be imported over to the X-E2.

I'm waiting.

4 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 1, 2013)

That was my thinking, though this review will see me revisiting that decision, here in Australia the x-pro1 and x-e1 35mm kits represent excellent value at the moment. The 35mm would make a decent start for a collection of Fuji's first three f1.4 primes - 23, 35 and 53mm.

I might jump early, update the body later with another prime kit.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 1, 2013)

"despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.

Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.

I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

I see what you mean, but even "flawed" cameras can be very likable, up to level gold. I'm actually glad to see so many gold awards. Doesn't make it easier to choose, but it is indicative of the current state of imaging technology.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 1, 2013)

Well, at least the movie mode really is a minor issue in a camera that's clearly aimed at stills photographers. Not every camera has to excel at everything.
And as for the gold award, the awards are supposed to be totally subjective. They are meant to show you how the reviewer feels about the camera. If he enjoyed using the camera more than most cameras, or thinks it represents great value for money, then a gold award is perfectly reasonable. You may read it as a recommendation of the camera, for those who agree with the reviewer, that the video and AF issues are not major flaws. You don't agree, and I don't either (in the case of the AF), but others might. It's all subjective.

1 upvote
CabSav
By CabSav (Mar 1, 2013)

@Revenant
If "the awards are supposed to be totally subjective. They are meant to show you how the reviewer feels about the camera."
why bother with all the scoring system in 11 categories among them focus and metering and video?

0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Mar 1, 2013)

@ CabSav - so you've got something objective to look at, alongside the subjective gold/silver award.

0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Mar 1, 2013)

"Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use."

Look, I use the camera since October, and I think that the review is rather correct.
For a photographer like me who doesn't really care about video that specific disadvantage doesn't matter. I haven't even once tried to film with it, that is how little I care about it.
But the image quality with the 35mm is seriously good.
Regarding AF, I would honestly say that the speed will be sufficiently quick for most uses. It is true that it is its weakest side and the camera is not ideal for sports photography or if you have hyperkinetic kids jumping around. But it is good enough for many uses!
Unlike many other cameras, this one is actually very natural and classic in use (for an old school photographer like me), and the output quality is truly remarkable.

3 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't doubt that this is a great camera, just whether it deserved a Gold Award. That is if "Gold" is supposed to mean "the very best."

I never use the video feature myself.... and fast AF isn't essential for everyone, but we have seen Dpreview downgrade other cameras for having these exact same problems.

And the frequent crashes are baffling. Surely this shouldn't happen with a camera that is rate as the very best of it's kind.

The XE-1 is a really nice camera.... but if it gets a Gold Award, then Gold just doesn't mean what it used to mean. In the schools, they call this "grade inflation" where every student is an exceptional student.

0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Mar 1, 2013)

A camera that crashes is a huge embarrassment. Especially nowadays. I agree this is an outstanding negative feature. Yet this camera has so many outstanding positive features, that this one is simply offset. This camera is aimed at a certain group of photographers and it delivers like no other. So if you come back from a day of shooting with a big smile on your face, a gold award is a reasonable consequence.

0 upvotes
lensez
By lensez (Mar 1, 2013)

Marty 4650: "I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver."

Nobody's tastes and values are exactly the same as anyone else's. I suggest it's more useful to base decisions on the words and pictures in the review rather than dwell on the gold or silver icon at the bottom.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 1, 2013)

As an owner of the X-E1, I asked other owners whether they ever observed any crashes. I think there wasn't a single one. DPR must have had a bad specimen. Crashes certainly isn't a hallmark of the X-E1. Whenever there is something like this mentioned, it is wise to follow up and see if it's a one-off thing or a common occurrence. None of the other big reviews has mentioned crashes either.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Marty, it's all relative. Fuji never marketed the camera for video. It probably only has a movie mode because it has a CMOS sensor. AF performance is fine, fast, accurate and quick with three of the 5 lenses available. It's average with one other (the 35) and weak with another (the 60) which is a macro lens.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Mar 2, 2013)

Point being.... Dpreview downrated the Fuji X100 for many of these same problems. Two years later, a very similar set of problems earns the XE-1 a gold award!

I'm starting to wonder what a Gold Award really means. If it doesn't mean "best in class" then it should mean "something new and innovative." I just don't see where the XE-1 qualifies.

Silver Award perhaps... but when every "very good but flawed" camera gets a Gold Award, then these awards become useless.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 2, 2013)

@CabSav & Marty4650
As DPR explains, the scoring system and the awards are two different, unconnected things:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

The first is supposed to be as objective as possible, being based to a large extent on tests and measurements. However, some things are subjective by nature, such as ergonomics and handling, so it can never be 100% objective.
The awards are meant to be subjective. They give the reviewer an opportunity to express his personal opinion and feelings about the camera, based on his personal preferences and priorities. It's like the "Editor's choice" in a review magazine; not necessarily awarded to the best-in-test products, but the personal recommendations of the editor in question.

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Mar 1, 2013)

Camera full of bugs, that seriously crashes during review, leaving it almost unusable - gets GOLD. WoW...

13 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Wow, now this is an example of bad focusing...

3 upvotes
Efner
By Efner (Mar 2, 2013)

I've had my XE-1 for three months now.
I HAVE NEVER HAD IT FREEZE,!!
The only way I can make it miss focus is if I try by taking less than a 1/4 of a second to let it lock on.
THESE ARE FACTS

0 upvotes
TORN
By TORN (Mar 1, 2013)

Good image quality, good ergonomics.

Still lots of room for improvement:

- EVF speed (general laggyness, smearing, especially when zoomed) and availability when shooting a series of images
- back display size, quality, tilt
- AF speed and reliability (the kit is a great improvement and shows the way)
- MF with Fujis own lenses, especially when combined with the EVF laggyness
- Bugs (really freezes until you take out the battery)
- video (if you need it you will go elsewhere anyway)
- focus peeking (but before that get the EVF up to speed)
- writing speed

I handled the X-E1 now several times and while the handling and the image quality is great it feels like it is lacking speed and quality in several other key aspects, effectively making it at times more difficult to catch the image you want even bordering into being frustraiting sometimes. I guess speeding up the camera in several areas will make the successor much more the camera allrounder I would like to have.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Mar 1, 2013)

To me the Fuji X-series is a case of the emperors new clothes. They basically take a Nikon D3100 or a Canon t2i, put it inside a shinier body, and sell it as if it's the greatest new thing. It is a pretty standard APS-C camera.

First of all the images look mushy at ISO 200. It doesn't look nearly as good as a D7000 or OM-D.

Second are the lenses. Everyone is hyping these lenses, as good as Leica, etc... Why? These Fuji lenses are really overrated. The corner softness is so bad I often think these are re-branded Sigma lenses.

If compactness is an issue, Olympus is convincing me better. If compactness is not an issue, Nikon and Canon get you more for less money. It just doesn't look as shiny.

2 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Ever heard of X-Trans? CMOS... X-Trans... Not the same thing... New emperor, new clothes.

4 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 1, 2013)

Another armchair expert. If you like the Olympus buy one. I don't get why Oly users are so insecure.

As for the D7000, I owned one and there is no comparison. The IQ is far better on the Fuji, especially over ISO200.

6 upvotes
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (Mar 1, 2013)

Except the lenses and IQ are actually pretty good. I know because I´ve used an X Pro for several months. I´ve also used cameras by Minolta, Hasselblad, Nikon and Olympus. I´m not a fan boy. In fact I find fan boy-ism psycholigcally baffling. But the lenses are pretty good for the price though the 17mm is a bit of a weak link compared to to the 14mm, 35mm and 60mm (zoom I haven´t used). Perhaps you´d like to say specifically which Sigma lens designs they are based on giving evidence for your reasons? Or are perhaps we are just yanking everyone´s chain and wasting time because someone doesn´t have anything better to do? It´s amazing how people have to justify their own life choices by refusing to accept anyone can choose something different. Must be an existential thing. Anyway, since it´s a nice day here in Seville and my work is closed for the Andalucia day holiday I´m going to take my X Pro and take some photos. Rather than comment meaninglessly on cameras I´ve never used.

4 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Mar 1, 2013)

I had D7000 for a year, it has strong AA filter, need good lenses. OMD? LOL as long as the sensor is smaller, no way it's comparable to Fuji's X Trans. The problem with Fuji is just that there is no optimal RAW converter...making it a high end jpg camera.

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Mar 1, 2013)

That's a major problem. What good is the sensor's output quality if it's all "theoretical?" Reminds me of Pentax and Silkypix.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Mar 1, 2013)

Who says what is theoretical? I have an Xe1 and the IQ is amazing at higher ISOs and pretty darn good at low ones. My other camera is a D600 and there are many aspects of the Xe1's images I actually prefer, even if the Nikon has slightly more resolution.

0 upvotes
nixda
By nixda (Mar 1, 2013)

External RAW processing currently is as good as the in-camera processing in terms of IQ, but much more flexible than the in-camera processing. No big problems here anymore, but it's been a shaky few months for RAW shooters.

0 upvotes
Efner
By Efner (Mar 2, 2013)

There is NOTHING wrong with ACR 7.4.

0 upvotes
Gregfromholland
By Gregfromholland (Mar 1, 2013)

Having used the Fuji X-E1 for a full month in Burma I would say, the image quality is great, really great.
That's the good part.
The bad part is the autofocus which is honestly not what it should be.
The video-mode, being not the most important thing for this camea sucks. Especially the auto focus...Fuji what would really help a lot is a focus-lock mode in video.

Also I would have loved if the the camera had the +/- dial going up to minus 3 and plus 3 instead of only two stops.

Other than that, no complains. Really happy with it.
My Burma photo's are here:
http://www.gregorservais.nl/fotografie/

Cheers,
Gregor

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 1, 2013)

Give me a break. Gold for troublsome AF? In 2013?

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Not for AF of course, but for superior ergonomics and image quality. Can't you read? ;-)

8 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes, I can read and understand at the same time.

This is a Camera Review, NOT a Sensor Review.

The whole package (eg. the Camera) does not deserve a Gold Award.

And the small, cheap, LCD does not make for "for superior ergonomics".

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Mar 1, 2013)

Good IQ in JPEG only. It's all.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Mar 2, 2013)

Nikonworks, I'm surprised you aren't moaning about the screen... I thought that was the worst thing manufactured since the Ford Edsel??? Oh I see you managed that in follow up...

ogl, really? Capture One must just have been a fluke for these two:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8088/8435975557_9d4732e030_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8084/8435974921_4233536a0c_o.jpg

1 upvote
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 2, 2013)

as per above..give me a break, Please.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Mar 1, 2013)

Comparing it against the default competitors in the RAW studio test image, it looks soft as can be. Resolution looks like 1/2 that of the other 16mp images and vastly below that of the NEX-7. Even moving the little square to other parts of the scene pretty much show that as well. I wonder why?
Odder still, the resolution target test looks good!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Mar 1, 2013)

Because the default output from LR is soft.
And DPR test cameras at the default parameters.

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Mar 1, 2013)

@Rich
Read the review and understand it.
Then look at the right pics for comparison.
Then draw your conclusions.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
inorogNL
By inorogNL (Mar 1, 2013)

how is AF performance compared to x100 in lowlight/indoor situations?

0 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Mar 1, 2013)

bleh, omd seems to output at least on equal terms

0 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Great review indeed! Maybe even worth the long wait... ;-)

1 upvote
Total comments: 527
123