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.

602
I own it
77
I want it
88
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 527
123
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Mar 1, 2013)

I have the camera since October, with the 35mm lens. I pretty much agree with most of the observations.
In my experience, the image quality is indeed very good, and jpg is indeed so convincing that I only bother with raw when the light is difficult. Usually my camera is set to Velvia, and I use aperture priority with spotmetering, very classic usage in fact. The end result barely needs further touching up, and I save so much time.
The quality is so good that i don t need FF. Rhe 35 mm has nice enough bokeh already.

I am not very interested in video so that deficiency doesn t bother me.

2 wishes for an xe2:
A lock on the exposure conpensation dial. It is currently too easy to accidently turn.
A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish.

2 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Mar 1, 2013)

"A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish."

It looks a very nice camera but it never ceases to amaze me that any high end digital camera doesn't have a tiltable screen these days.

My main camera is a Sony A77 and the tiltable screen on that is amazing and doesn't add much to the dimensions. Being able to shoot waste level is great. A camera like this little Fuji would be perfect if it had one in my opinion.

I know the Nex cameras have such screens but given the choice of an"Xe2" with tiltable screen and any of the Nex's I'd go for the Fuji because of the lenses.

1 upvote
belcanto
By belcanto (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes, and not a word about the quality of the magnified view of the viewfinder, smearing in 3x and stuttering in 10x magnification. I would like to have seen the normal EVF-size camparison as well.

1 upvote
kaxi85
By kaxi85 (Mar 1, 2013)

me too!

0 upvotes
Ak pinxit
By Ak pinxit (Mar 1, 2013)

Body design and IQ are good indeed but EVF and 480K LCD make you think again . EVF leggy and suffers few more small floes (and burst shooting is topic on it's own) enough for DP to mention the fact , which (the mention) is a strong "flag" on its own .
Hybrid VF of Pro1 looks like the best and only (so far) solution .

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

I didn't expect a Gold award for this one with the persisting AF weakness, but rather Silver and Gold (with a margin!) for the X100s.

Now that, I expect to be a slam dunk for Fujifilm in reviews. They take the "almost perfect" X100 and spends crazy focus on the AF system, making it more interesting than even competitive cameras that are in high regard when it comes to AF, with the new rangefinder-ish system.

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

When one compares the RAW files from the XE-1 with those of a class act like the Pentax K-5 IIs, one cannot help wondering why low ISO detail rendition is so much of out of favor these days. The Fuji's look like mush, at pixel peeping level, at ISO 200.

I use the Nikon D5100, and I see nothing, from a technology point of view, that would prompt one to switch systems.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Mar 1, 2013)

See my comment below and/or look at the JPEG comparision at ISO 200.
Does it still look like mush when compared to K-5 IIs or Nikon D5100?

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Mar 1, 2013)

Thats's interesting because I've heard the opposite (as well as seen in this review's lab test) due to the missing AA filter. You haven't compared the results via RAW's in Lightroom or Aperture? Because those don't yet have support for the new sensor used here, resulting in mush at all ISO sensitivities.

2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Mar 1, 2013)

@dengx, the fuji spends much more time processing their jpegs than pentax, nikon, etc. So no wonder they can be better. I guess we should talk about peak IQ, which is available only via RAW, and Fuji 's pics looks like a mush indeed. Just take a look (NEX-5n on the left, Fuji on the right).
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/boring-comparison.png

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Imagician
By Imagician (Mar 1, 2013)

Agree with Emacs23. The best way to compare would be to take the RAW files from both the cameras and put them through the same processing steps with the same software. Good jpeg processing and sensor capability are not synonymous.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 48 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Mar 1, 2013)

Which the dpreview did already.
But it is not optimal at any case since the defaults for every camera will show the different output :)

0 upvotes
Jonathan Lee
By Jonathan Lee (Mar 1, 2013)

Yea, i might need a "vision correction" to see the admired quality the reviewers are suggesting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Fuji. I still have their 4x5 lenses and shooting my remaining 4x5 fujifilms.

It seems to me the cam has a heavy handed Noise Red, hence, the mushy. It reminds me of the quality from the 1st couple gen Canon's DSLR. see their compared shot. http://g1.img-dpreview.com/DC13292B6328418B8F09FCE01AECB8FB.jpg

Overall, the image quality isn't something to brag for today's APS size camera.

hum... iPhone5 has a pretty nice prime lens and it is a joy to shoot with. will this site rate it the best compact? :)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 2, 2013)

Um, it's a new sensor layout so the raw processing will not be properly optimized in software yet - especially third-party. I am starting to think some of you are in the "you can have my Bayer array when you pry it from my cold, dead camera" crowd :)

0 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Mar 1, 2013)

Default Lightroom sharpening is very, very blurry when compared to the defaults for the other cameras.
Quick and dirty edit of ISO200 RAW shot:

https://picasaweb.google.com/108296124492818015753/DPR?authkey=Gv1sRgCKWs7v6oob78Fg#5850284964495533714

Clarity: 20
Sharpening: 65
Radius: 0,5
Detail: 30
Masking: 35

1 upvote
h2k
By h2k (Mar 1, 2013)

I love the Pros and most Cons don't bother me personally - I'd love to get a copy, and these desirable lenses, if only it had a tiltable touch-screen monitor.

Looking at the product shot, i still wonder why there aren't more buttons on the right side of the camera back, and why many buttons are on the left side. Buttons on the right side would make one-handed use easier, but maybe this camera intentionally shuns people who like one-handed use.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
buda1065
By buda1065 (Mar 1, 2013)

This would replace my GH2 as a travel camera if it had better video, timelapse, and a GPS option. The lenses and retro styling are great. Too bad.

1 upvote
robjons
By robjons (Mar 1, 2013)

DP, can you please be more thorough about listing retail price in your reviews?

Any product review should always start with or at least include MSRP, not "street price" or Amazon price. In the above article I don't even see the price mentioned in the introduction.
Then there is this line: "The X-Pro1 was generally well-received, but its price was always likely to limit its appeal." Okay, you imply a high price but don't bother to specify it. I have to scrounge around for it. Again MSRP only.
Also, 'key feathers' should start with price as should the spec sheet (which I know usually does).
Thanks.

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Mar 2, 2013)

But prices change so fast and often it would be a problem to maintain. Also, why is MSRP important if you find it everywhere cheaper?

0 upvotes
robjons
By robjons (Mar 2, 2013)

Because, in the mist, I'll explain the obvious: in 1958 the US gov began requiring MSRP stickers on all new cars. This provided consumers with a universal starting point. It was more difficult to cheat new car buyers after this. You will not see car tests/reviews without the MSRP being listed. DP should simply list the maker's price, thats all.
Everyone knows an MSRP in an article is the price at the time of publication, and that you may be able to find it cheaper.
And change so fast? The D7000 was the same MSRP for about two years and the D7100 is the same price... as that, etc...

0 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Mar 1, 2013)

People continue arguing why a camera got a gold or silver award when the real question should be: Why do 95% of all reviewed prosumer/enthusiast/mirrorless and DSLRs get an award at all? Awards should be reserved for the top 20 or maybe 25% of any class.
Makes one wonder why they give them away like this.

9 upvotes
Shengji
By Shengji (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess it's because the award denotes a certain level of quality rather than being a competitive award.

Iif a camera in the top 25% at the moment happened to be released at a time when there were a load of other great camera's out, it's not a worse camera and so it's odd to not give it an award it would have otherwise earnt based on other camera out.

What happens when newer cameras get released? Do you constantly take awards away from cameras as better cameras are released?

Playing devils advocate here because I can see your point of view as well but surely you can see how a competitive award is not as useful for customers and consumers when compared with a quality mark? Perhaps the bar should be set higher, but honestly, it's difficult for the amateur enthusiast to buy a bad camera these days and you name any system, you'll find millions of dedicated users taking great pics and not regretting their purchase. Good times in photography!

1 upvote
monkeybrain
By monkeybrain (Mar 1, 2013)

It's because almost all cameras released nowadays are actually very good. Most of the differences between them are niche features, nitpicking, or user preference.

3 upvotes
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Mar 1, 2013)

Sure monkeybrain, but when the overall quality rises, so should the standards required for awards.
They may even all score highly, but the awards should be the exception, not the rule.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Mar 1, 2013)

OMG Fujifilm, put this sensor in an SLR body ALREADY!!!

It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond typical ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji can/wants to do atm that is fine.
Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!

Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, true OVF, TTL lighting capability - too many benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen directly related to the photography industry in years.

(Higher MP and accompanying higher noise 'massaged' to look like grain is not technology progress...)

5 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Mar 1, 2013)

The successor to this one will most likely at least use the new hybrid AF system found in the Fujifilm X100s, so then you'll at least get a taste of DSLR-like phase detection autofocus.

I'm holding out for that camera, since I'm not in a hurry to switch. I expect it to be released before the end of this year. By waiting, I get closer to their release of their 55-200mm tele zoom as well.

Also, if the X-Pro1 will also see this tech bump, there'll be one with both hybrid AF and an OVF.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Mar 1, 2013)

Fuji has already stated they are exploring/working on FF. it's pretty exciting to think about.
Although unlike you, I really, really hope it's not in a dslr body. Their current x bodies are some of my favorite bodies ever, from a design standpoint.

0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (Mar 1, 2013)

Example photos taken with the "off the chart" DR setting would be appreciated. At least I couldn't find them in either of the reviews of this system.

1 upvote
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes,me too, i'm curious to see what "off the chart" DR means :)

0 upvotes
dennis mol
By dennis mol (Mar 1, 2013)

With the raw image processing issues resolved and its seemingly great lens line I am starting to warm to the Fuji X cameras, but I look at these studio images, and they seem disappointing in comparing them to the other cameras. Only in hi iso does it lead but only to my eye by a half stop.
Is this camera the emperor with no clothes? Some of those other cameras have so much more going for them from a functional point of view what are you really gaining here?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
robjons
By robjons (Mar 1, 2013)

So sad... "Auto ISO now allows use of ISO 6400, but sadly there's still no way of influencing the minimum shutter speed."
I guess using the word sad in this context is British writing convention, but it evokes visions of people in a camera shop with tears streaming.

Sad is when your dog dies, not when some consumer electronic device is missing a minor feature. But I'm so sad I felt compelled to write this.
Its a sad sad turn of events.

2 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Mar 1, 2013)

Adv. sadly - in an unfortunate or deplorable manner; "he was sadly neglected"; "it was woefully inadequate".

8 upvotes
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Mar 1, 2013)

onlooker, great comment.

1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Mar 1, 2013)

So lets see: vs Sony NEX 5R/6

The NEX's are

- much, much less expensive
- same (similar) IQ
- significantly smaller & lighter (+pancake kit zoom & 16/20 f2.8 WA)
- adapters take almost any legacy lens
- better articulating LCD
- proper sweep panorama
- 10fps burst inc RAW
- extensive video controls
- wifi + apps (eg intervalometer, remote control via mobile devices & multishot noise reduction etc)
- touchscreen or similar spec EVF
- faster AF + PD AF
- focus peaking

One must REALLY like Fuji or retro styling to throw as much as twice the money at a bigger, heavier arguably less capable mirrorless camera. The price Fuji's asking buys a LOT of DSLR.

Food for thought.

PS DPR can you please review the Sony NEX 5R/6 and also add the 5R to the image comparison database.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
20 upvotes
Banhmi
By Banhmi (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't know how anyone could pick the X-E1 over high-end NEX cameras or OM-D E-M5.

6 upvotes
DMillier
By DMillier (Mar 1, 2013)

In the UK the XE1 is £630, the OMD is £1000. The Nex 7 is £840. So the Fuji is considerably the cheapest.

The appeal of the Fuji (for me) is the traditional film camera like nature of the controls. I own two NEX cameras and while I find them great on a tripod I find them unusable as handheld cameras as the ergonomics are so bad.

15 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Mar 1, 2013)

;=)
Lets see: Fujifilm X-Trans vs NEX gadgetry

- Less capable NEX bodies cheaper.
- IQ not comparable, sorry.
- Size subjective, if it matters more than IQ go for it.
- Same lens adapters available. Only limited by product release dates.
- Great how easily NEX LCD is damaged.
- Sweep panorama a required feature? - Can lock exposure to correct.
- FPS.. Learn subject, learn environment, anticipate shutter - learn photography.
- Takes video. Thankfully Fujifilm still a photography company.
- WiFi indeed welcome - not extensively useful in the field.
- X-Trans IQ at such a high level multi-shot NR apps not needed.
- Touch screen not needed on camera providing external control.
- Same excellent 2.36mp OLED EVF. (if EVF is your thing)
- Comparable hybrid AF performance - <OMD, <SLR.
- Unique, unmatched 3rd party lens support. (Leica M-Mount Adapter)

An excellent digital photography tool where absolute IQ and lenses are desired. Current RAW support offset by better JPG than many others RAW.

13 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (Mar 1, 2013)

It's pretty obvious the superior IQ is why one would choose Fuji over m43 or NEX. Even if Fuji lags behind in other areas, different people have different priorities.

1 upvote
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Mar 1, 2013)

DMillier, are you sure the NEX7 costs 840BP?
now it is discounted about 40 percent from its original price in most of Asia and US,etc.
The UK prices of the Sony, Oly seem really ridiculously high, the OM-D costs 1000BP? it is hard to believe but I think you are right. it's really too crazy, I bought my OM-D with the kit lens for about 900USD 11 months ago and I paid about 700USD for NEX6 with the powerzoom in last December.
Why is every camera so expensive in the UK?

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

chillreg: Your comparison is not correct.
1. There are adapters for Fuji X the same wayas for nEX
2. IQ-here the Fuji X does better than NEX/EM5 in several tests. The cametrastore for instance.
But yuo are right about video and tilt LCD!
In the end what is the best camera is up to each user's needs. What are the features important for me?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Mar 1, 2013)

IQ of Fuji is lower. Period. Just don't compare JPEGs and use RAW instead.
There's no advantage in high ISO performance over NEX (ISO6400 of Fuji is about ISO3200 of NEX).
The detail are much better with NEX. Colors depend on profiles.
Just see, how bad Fuji (right) actually is.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/boring-comparison.png

3 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess it's like Ferrari vs Lamborghini in a way. IQ of both is stratospheric and comparable to PRO-DSLR of only a few years ago.

That shutter dial would do my head in, but I can fathom some people enjoying the tactile feel of a dial. I like Fujis just can't justify one for my needs.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 1, 2013)

It's not only the UK, high prices is a European problem.
The current prices for enthusiast (EVF-equipped) mirrorless ILCs in Sweden, converted to USD (prices are for body only):

X-Pro1 $1860
GH3 $1630
X-E1 $1400
OM-D E-M5 $1400
NEX-7 $1240
V2 $1160 (with kit lens, not available body only)
NEX-6 $1090
NX20 $960
G5 $780

0 upvotes
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Mar 1, 2013)

Siliconvoid is funny coming up with counter attack.
You both made points. Good points.

But certainly Fuji X will always cost significantly more than Nex cameras overall the world. And if you ask better features for the money... I am afraid to be honest Nex are clearly better deal here.

1 upvote
Efner
By Efner (Mar 2, 2013)

Fuji xe-1 with the exceptional 18-55 kit lens $1399
Nex with comparable zoom".....?
Not available at ANY price!
Xe-1 35mm lens $599.
What does Sony offer to compete ?
How about the 18mm and the incredible new 14mm 2.8 fuji?

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Mar 3, 2013)

I'm not an exoert on lenses. Nor wish to be. Perhaps for a small percentage of the total market, that can afford (and desire) to spend thousands on their kit, your point may have some relevance.

However my point is that in some regions, the NEX kit can be had for about half the price of the Fuji. And for non-pixelpeeping, and n-gargantuan professional prints, the IQ is indiscernable to most. I admit that viewed at large sizes on my screen, the Fuji does have gorgeous JPEG output, no doubt about that.

The NEX 5R is by far the best camera I haver ever owned. Ite's esy and fun to use, with the 16-50 or 16/20 it truly is a pocketable camera with DSLR picture quality. The ability to direct upload via wifi is excellent, remote control from a mobile device is such a new tool for many, touch shutter and focus is awesome, and perhaps most importantly (and currently waaay undervalued) is the ability to add apps.

cont/...

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Mar 3, 2013)

cont/...

So its a small, light, well built, sexy, innovative camera, with phenomenal IQ that would have cost thousands more only a few years ago. At HALF the price of the Fuji! ;p

And PS Mike yes I enjoyed Siliconvoid's retort - very clever lol. Lucky he/she put the wink in at the top ;)

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Mar 3, 2013)

It's not a nex. get over it. Go shoot with your nex and stop trying to generate post purchase satisfaction by dissing the Fuji.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Mar 4, 2013)

Thank you Doctor Dolittle.

0 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 1, 2013)

I call B_. The K 01 is every bit as good. The Fuji is half again as much with kit lens.

1 upvote
Myari
By Myari (Mar 1, 2013)

"The K 01 is every bit as good"

Apart from image quality, which might be equal, K 01 is worse in every single imaginable way. No viewfinder. Slower AF. Thicker. Worse ergonomics. Worse design. Worse grip.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
16 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 1, 2013)

Ergonomics are actually very good. AF is decent with the firware upgrade. Focus peaking will allow much better MF performance as well.

The body may be thicker, but the lenses are thinner. The K 01 with 40mm and 21mm primes is formidable, especially shooting DNG. Ihave been shooting with a K 01 for a year now. It is has world class IQ in a much smaller package than most.

2 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Mar 1, 2013)

These are all your opinions. The reviewers who have used both cameras agree with what I posted above.

If you want to review your own cameras, start your own site.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Mar 1, 2013)

@ Myari

Slower AF? Have you even tried shooting with one? The AF is much quicker and snappier than the previous X100.

Yeah you just posted, I bet you haven't touched one or actually seen one in real life.

0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Mar 1, 2013)

No, it's not. Read the DPR review. It's worst in the class

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Mar 1, 2013)

the most expensive jpg-only camera...

6 upvotes
avicenanw
By avicenanw (Mar 1, 2013)

Fuji got great jpeg and some photographers don't want to mess around with raw. The specs say it has RAW. Other than Adobe I don't know of other support for Fuji's EXR raw file due to its pixel layout.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Please stop suggesting that RAW is the only way for serious photography. It isn't. Good photography starts with good operation of the camera. In most of those cases JPEGs will do the job and in this case they will do a GREAT job.

2 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (Mar 1, 2013)

Besides, this isn't a JPEG-only camera. And you now it... ;-)

1 upvote
Duri
By Duri (Mar 1, 2013)

Having perfect JPG saves your time, space and money. It's great to shoot RAW only, but you have to invest additional effort to get final result ... Of course X-E1 supports RAW format. Capture One, Silkipix, Lightroom, ACR, you name others support X-Trans RAW conversion. BTW X-E1 has X-Trans not EXR type of sensor. Guys, read a bit about the camera before you type ...

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 1, 2013)

Why are you guys defending poor RAW implementation ? Call a spade a spade. ACR only recently improved support for Fuji RAW files. Earlier implementations cause lots of IQ issues.

Those who like to shoot JPEGs are of course fine. But a LOT of people like the flexibility of RAW. And frankly given how the camera slows down and the lack of RAW support is a sizeable negative.

Maybe for the XE-2 with better Xtrans sensor support will not have the same issues with RAW support but as far as I am concerned the current XE-1 is primarily a JPEG only camera.

1 upvote
Jman13
By Jman13 (Mar 1, 2013)

RAW support is fine now (unless you're an Aperture shooter). Yes, before Adobe updated their algorithms, it was a big issue. It isn't now. And yes, the X-E1 on default settings is softer than other cameras...but when you sharpen those files, you get as much or MORE detail, without artifacting (if you sharpened the other cameras by that much, you'd get serious halos and other artifacts).

I shot Canon for 6 years, including the 1Ds II. I then moved to m4/3 to save bulk, and have been shooting with the OM-D for the past year with great glass. I just picked up an X-E1 two weeks ago to complement my OM-D. I just love the way it handles, regardless of the spotty AF in low light. And even though it has its flaws, the image quality is frankly stunning. You do need to sharpen the files more than the OM-D, but after that, you are still left with a much cleaner file with deeper color and tonal depth. The OM-D is better when quick AF is needed, but the Fuji's output is awesome.

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

Jpeg pretty much means, photographer trusting his camera's brain to process the image making.
I like to remind myself that there are no brains in cameras.
Photographer in my understanding stands for "image maker" not only freezing time.

Therefore raw is the way to go for your own brain with a pair of good eyes working to make good imaging. Only personally speaking.

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (Mar 1, 2013)

Pentax K-5IIs, would love to see that review one day...

5 upvotes
SheikYerbouti
By SheikYerbouti (Mar 1, 2013)

... yeah, me too. But I'm not sure this will happen.

Regarding Fuji: I love the classic look of the X100(S) ... a real beauty! The X-pro 1 and the X-E1 are a much more versatile cameras but in my opinion they lack a little in the "looks department". Why did Fuji opt for such a cheesy looking hand grip? It seems like an afterthought ...

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

Come on Fuji, put a FF sensor in there. It is the only thing my X-E1 lack.

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 1, 2013)

FF sensor would make it bigger and more expensive. Even with APS-C it is as good or better than many FF DSLRs what comes to IQ. I like it just as it is, if you want FF, there is Leica. Even if I had the money I would still pick X-Pro1 and X-E1, both for the quality and size.

2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Mar 1, 2013)

LOL
Its IQ is worse than one of 16Mp APS-C counterpart :)
Don't spread BS about being on par with FF, they are not.

1 upvote
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Mar 1, 2013)

FF ? It's means bigger lenses, bigger camera, cost more. But for FF you can use SpeedBooster. And IQ if good enough for every days use. With FF sensor you gain better DOF control, not really better IQ because FF comes in 24mpx and 36mpx, so more or less same pixel size thaht gather light

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 1, 2013)

spidermoon - we'd just use Leica M glass. Not much bigger (if at all) than Fuji own glass while offering better IQ.
And speedbooster is a marketing crap, and you know it.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Mar 1, 2013)

The IQ from ACR is really junk. Compare with the best cameras in terms of IQ - K-5IIs, NEX-7 in RAW.
Gold award - funny....Rather slow camera with very mediocre IQ.

0 upvotes
oldfogey
By oldfogey (Mar 1, 2013)

Nonsense - The X-E1 is right up there with the K5IIs at ISO 6400. - At this ISO the image from the X-E1 is comparable to the OMD-E5 (and EOS7D) set at ISO3200 and the NEX7 set at ISO 1600. Look at the images of the threads which are in a shaded portion of the sample image. These provide the best indication of shadow noise.

5 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes. The K 01 Raw results were significantly better and I believe they used an antiquated 50/1.4 with it as well. The 40 that comes with it will beat any of the 50s.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Mar 1, 2013)

Wait DXO test. X100, for example, has manufacture ISO1600, real 1000, ISO3200 = real 1012, ISO6400 = 1076....:)
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Fujifilm/FinePix-X100

I'm sure that the real ISO of X-E1's 6400 is MUCH lower. :) No doubt.

0 upvotes
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

@ogl - you make a erroneous statement:
X100 - 12mp Bayer sensor
X-E1 - 16mp X-Trans sensor
Completly diferent sensors.

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Mar 1, 2013)

@greuceanu
take a look at Fuji respective shutter speeds for the nominally same ISO, i.e. ISO3200, compare it to NEX-7's.
Fuji set it twice longer. So, it means Fuji's ISO3200 is about ISO1600 of NEX-7, simple.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Mar 1, 2013)

Sensors are different, but Fuji trick is the same...

0 upvotes
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Mar 1, 2013)

Image quality comparison samples are clear here.
Thank you dpreview. No need a translation or certainly no interpretation. Image quality is not par with both nex7 and Oly. Nor nex6.

0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Mar 1, 2013)

"Sensors are different, but Fuji trick is the same..."

There is no "trick". Dxomark "measured" ISO is measuring highlight clipping. It's not measuring shutter speed/exposure. This is not standard definition of ISO.

The proof that your claim is bogus is to go see X100 shutter spreed at ISO 6400 vs ISO 1600. It's two stop faster at ISO 6400.

So there is no "trick" here.

0 upvotes
Fletch50mm
By Fletch50mm (Mar 1, 2013)

I've really enjoyed using the camera in the past few months. Some sample images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/f_l_e_t_c_h/sets/72157631812572248/

2 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Mar 1, 2013)

Are those all out of camera JPEGs?

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Mar 1, 2013)

Really nice over all. I favorited what I thought were the best. I like your compositions with the 18mm best. I also love the colors going in general... exactly the right amount of punch, IMO. I'm just wondering how much messing around on the computer you had to do.

0 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Mar 1, 2013)

Typo in recommended links :
Fuji X110S Preview

0 upvotes
Rod McD
By Rod McD (Mar 1, 2013)

"Large and chunky build won't suit everyone......." (See conclusion 'cons'). Large and chunky? Really? Half the appeal of mirror-less is that they are smaller for the same sensor size than DSLRs and I thought the XE1 does an exemplary job of being small and retaining very high useability. Sure it won't suit phone and shirt pocket camera users but it's not intended to.

Otherwise a review that confirms what users have been reporting - it's a great camera.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Mar 1, 2013)

Lol yeah I didn't get that either. It's a 1/3 the size of a dslr. Big & clunky compared to an iPhone maybe.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 1, 2013)

Exactly, for a 'mirrorless' it's large and chunky, especially with the kit zoom lens. Though that's in concept of mirrorless cameras, and plenty of others like the NEX series and their lenses prove otherwise of the compactness of these systems. A compact DSLR with pancake lens? Pretty close in size.
IMO the X100 is a perfect size, I'll take a fixed lens over an interchangeable for the compactness, because I'll choose one of these in place of a DSLR to begin with

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 1, 2013)

My X-Pro1 & X-E1 kit with all 4 primes etc weighs 2.5 kg including the bag. Nikon kit (D4 & D800e) with similar lenses weighs 10 kg. Not compact?

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 1, 2013)

Compare it with a Sony NEX5R and you will see there is a rather substantial difference between the two.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#369,371

Similarly its not much smaller than a basic DSLT like a A55

http://camerasize.com/compare/#238,371

Not saying I don't like the Fuji. If I had to start a system from scratch I might consider the Fuji but I agree that for a mirrorless camera its rather large and clunky compared to other mirrorless cameras.

0 upvotes
fotokeena
By fotokeena (Mar 1, 2013)

lighter weigh yes,but compactness is determined by volume,so lighter does not always mean compact.

0 upvotes
jyhfeei
By jyhfeei (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't understand the complaints on size. To make best use of the manual controls, I think it is about right. Much smaller, and it may become cramped.

1 upvote
fierlingd
By fierlingd (Mar 1, 2013)

Exactly. I came here to post the same comment..

Sure it may be a touch more bulky than say some in the similar market space, but i don't see a solid/weighted build as a bad thing.. I think that's a great thing. Who cares if yoga mom's find the metal to be to masculine or whatever the argument. It's a small well built camera, and Fuji is getting critisiezd for it?

0 upvotes
MikeStern
By MikeStern (Mar 1, 2013)

It sure seems clunky and bulky.
Guys with fat fingers will not complain after handling Oly omd.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 2, 2013)

A little bulk to accommodate the physical controls is way better than "oh look how compact we have made the camera by moving most controls into menus on the touch screen!"

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 2, 2013)

Amen to that. Tools have to be certain size to work perfectly. These Fujis are quite perfect size for me with real controls. Making them smaller would mean missed shots.

0 upvotes
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Mar 1, 2013)

Hallelujah, DP. Thanks for the review !!!

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Mar 1, 2013)

We pray for the review and than give this deferential thanksgiving if we get it. What is this? Are we in a queue at the butcher's in East Berlin in 1955?

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (Mar 1, 2013)

Fuji..fix the AF and the RAW files...you will sell a TON of these!!!!!!
Until then...not me.

1 upvote
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

AF is already fixed by last firmware. RAW is an issue for a lazy company like Adobe. Fuji has offered support but is Adobe's engineers work.

1 upvote
Illumina
By Illumina (Mar 1, 2013)

I wish the price could go down a little :)
Or maybe a little cheaper lens with smaller aperture should be allright..
Like maybe 50 f1.8 or 35 f2 or pancake 16 2.8 maybe?
Nice little camera..

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Mar 1, 2013)

Go Shawn go.... go Shawn go! ;)

Still sporting the beard?

C

2 upvotes
yomasa
By yomasa (Mar 1, 2013)

If you compare the raw files I would have to say this camera sucks. Not sure whats going on here.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Mar 1, 2013)

The odd thing is, when I look at the RAW images from the test set-up, the Fuji doesn't seem to resolve as well as some of the competition, at least until very high ISO where its low-noise helps.

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

Blame Adobe's default sharpening for the files. As a user, I can tell you the detail is there, you just have to move the slider. I'll take that over the previous ACR versions where the details were smeared and edges were sharpened giving a water color like appearance.

3 upvotes
pixel_peeper
By pixel_peeper (Mar 1, 2013)

The ACR Raw output is more blurred than the out-of-camera jpeg, which is itself not as sharp as the NEX7 or EM5.

If it's not possible for a raw converter to produce sharper pictures than Fuji's out-of-camera jpegs, I'd say this camera and the XPro1 are for people who especially hate moiré (or for shots that the photographer knows will be badly affected by it) and are prepared to sacrifice resolution. The AA filters of the Bayer-sensor competition are never strong enough to eliminate it. One strong enough would probably produce pictures like these. A better solution for good light is the 15 Mp Foveon. That leaves the Fujis for moiré-prone pictures in poor light.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Mar 1, 2013)

Looks like a nice rig. I love the shutter speed dial.

0 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Mar 1, 2013)

I have never seen you guys praise a camera's jpegs as with this one. Does this Fuji have the best jpeg output ever? Or in its class?

3 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Mar 1, 2013)

The short answer is yes, although some Pentax or Olympus fans would disagree.

5 upvotes
Ray Sachs
By Ray Sachs (Mar 1, 2013)

Well, jpegs are always sort of in the eye of the beholder. But, even with the X100 (which had pretty good raw support from very early), I've always shot jpegs with the Fujis and raw with everything else I've shot with. I just haven't been able to do better with raw and the jpegs are not only very nice, but they're also quite malleable to further processing with stuff like Silver or Color Efex and a fair amount of latitude in Lightroom.

Whether they're the best ever is a matter of opinion, but they're real good!

0 upvotes
fotokeena
By fotokeena (Mar 1, 2013)

Everything is in the eye of the beholder, including RAW.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Mar 1, 2013)

As a Pentax user, I agree that the JPG SOOC from Fujis could be the best out there.

My old HS10 JPG output is still better than my Kr's and Q's JPG could ever be.

1 upvote
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

Simply YES.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Mar 1, 2013)

Crikey! A Full Review!

Must be an interesting piece of a camera gear!

Brew some coffee to read the review?

"Eh, sure! Why not?" --- Moe the bartender (Simpsons)

.

1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Mar 1, 2013)

Congratulations, Fujifilm, for the lens! Still expensive, but that's how bright these APS-C kit lenses were supposed to be.

3 upvotes
Ray Sachs
By Ray Sachs (Mar 1, 2013)

So the X-Pro got the same score but silver a while back. I wonder if there would be any revision to that now that some of the bugs have been worked out through firmware, decent raw support is now available, and more lenses (the zoom and 14mm are now on the menu). It doesn't matter one way or the other, of course, but I'm sort of curious if the good folks at DPR actually find this camera somehow better than its older brother, or maybe give the award due to its lower price???

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

Good question. The X-Pro1's a pro-targeted camera, so it fits into a different category. It is therefore judged for its suitability to that category. We consider the X-E1 more of an enthusiast camera, and as such it rises to a gold.

9 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Mar 1, 2013)

They rate it in a peers bracket, so where the competition is at the moment does have an impact on the scores (and rightfully so). The AF issue got sorted a bit too which is no small thing.

0 upvotes
Ray Sachs
By Ray Sachs (Mar 1, 2013)

Shawn - understood. Thanks.
Sir Seth - true, but it was also sorted on the X-Pro, which is part of what raised the question.
It's academic anyway. Two great cameras - pay more for the OVF or pay less without it.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Mar 1, 2013)

The X-E1 and AX-Pro 1 are actually in the same scoring category - just to make that clear, although the latter is a more pro-oriented product (which is Shawn's point).

The main issue here is that when we reviewed the X-Pro 1, its manual focussing was very messy, there were serious issues with AF in some situations and third-party raw support was seriously deficient. All of those issues have been in large part solved in firmware and due to the good offices of Capture 1 and Adobe, so it's not exactly 'like for like'.

0 upvotes
Ray Sachs
By Ray Sachs (Mar 1, 2013)

Got it, but I seem to remember you folks re-examined and maybe re-rated the X100 after many of its early quirks were worked out in firmware. Which made me wonder whether you'd take the same approach with the X-Pro. Doesn't matter obviously, it is what it is today - but a prospective buyer might do a quick comparison and conclude that the XE1 is actually a more functional camera than the X-Pro, which its not. Similarly functional without an OVF and with a flash seems to be the story.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Mar 1, 2013)

Honestly, we should, and I'd really like to. It's something we need to revisit, especially now that raw support is so much better.

1 upvote
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Feb 28, 2013)

I had one and sold it after a frustrating 4 months of ownership. The images are nice but they do have a tampered with feeling to them and some lens setting produce unusual blurring and aberrations towards the edge of the frame.. the 18mm lens is particularly bad at this. for me though the biggest issue is ready usability. The dials for shutter and aperture and the way you change to aperture or shutter priority are great but choosing focus points is a painful and involved process, the eye has to be seated perfectly to get a good view of the frame, many times it looks blurred and as you cant trust the AF this is not a good thing. its slow to use and useless for action or even general motion shooting. I tried to get some pictures of the kids when it snowed and they are all blurred af just isnt up to it, although the recent firmware improved it a little. all in all the images are good but not great, its clunky to use but does have some really nice touches..usability is a killer though

15 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Mar 1, 2013)

Hmmm...worked just fine for me with kids and snow.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffseltzer/8230854753/in/set-72157632132234773

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (Mar 1, 2013)

Yeah I'd have to chalk that up to user error. I was able to shoot action shots in extremely low light with the x100, an the AF on the xpro/xe-1 is noticeably better than the x100.
Maybe you had a bad body.

0 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (Mar 1, 2013)

@Jeff I maybe should have clarified that these were action shots in the snow not static scene (as with yours) Definitely not user error Sam try getting a shot with your x-e1 when things are moving towards or away from you. I guarantee you will see the achilles heel of this camera. for static shots its great (i still maintain the images, including OOC Jpeg have an unusual blurry quality on close inspection). each to their own though, its a great idea but ultimately too compromised for me in some critical areas. What was significant was the amount of shots that were not keepers, blurred OOF etc - my previous camera was a GX-1 which coped much better under wider variety of conditions and didn't suffer the clunky usability issues (especially choosing focus point) that the X-E1 did. For me the main thing lacking in this review is that the EVF is ok but you have to have your eye aligned perfectly in order not to get artificial impression of OOF, not great given the poor AF

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
greuceanu
By greuceanu (Mar 1, 2013)

After last firmware update AF is snappy and extremely precise. When it 's locked you are 100% the focus is ok. You can shoot without problems a car coming to you at over 60km/h and 9 out of 10 it is perfectly sharp even at f2.8. You can shoot in almost complet darkness and with AF assist on, in a range of 5m, in 8 out of 10 it locks in under 1 sec. Yes, with kids running around you in a range of 1-5m AF can't keep the pace but even then, if use the zone focus, you can make a good picture.

0 upvotes
lightandday
By lightandday (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks for your efforts ! Good work !

2 upvotes
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Feb 28, 2013)

I like it, for the quality, not a bad price either

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 28, 2013)

Silver looks best.

Files do not depart from the known performance.

A very decent option at the price point.

0 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (Feb 28, 2013)

On page 6, you talk about frame lines:
"FW 1.10 still offers improvements with the frameline displays."

Does this refer to frame lines in the optical viewfinder of the X-Pro 1?

0 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (Feb 28, 2013)

Yes, that section refers to how third party adapters function with the X-Pro1's Hybrid Viewfinder. I've modified the line somewhat to make that more clear, a fix that will be published soon. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 28, 2013)

fixed.

0 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (Mar 1, 2013)

There is another one like this on page 7:
"These hoods also intrude on the lower corner of the optical viewfinder notably more than the vented variety."

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Feb 28, 2013)

This camera is so nearly the same as its big brother in essentials, by all accounts, that it seems to me that dpreview has wasted valuable resources doing a full review.

And it's not the first time. Occasionally us bottom feeders complain about the length of time we have to wait; I reckon some management/marketing decisions are the reason for that.

Kudos to management for favouring a photographers camera, however.

C- : Could do less in order to do more.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Feb 28, 2013)

And yes, I know I'm a grump, to answer those who actually go and look at people's previous posts.

But I am a jolly kind of grump, really. Just not today... or yesterday. And probably not tomorrow.

0 upvotes
Camera Nuts Jim
By Camera Nuts Jim (Mar 1, 2013)

I too am of the same mind as you. I don't care for over emphasis on objects of desire that really don't deserve the
review time it takes to gather all the info.

From one jolly old grump to another

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 28, 2013)

So many nice mirrorless options now. I wonder if the X100s would do just as good.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 527
123