Previous news story    Next news story

A camera for all weather? Shooting with the Fujifilm X-T1 + Japan gallery

By dpreview staff on Feb 25, 2014 at 19:24 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,299.007 deals

We first laid our hands on the Fujifilm X-T1 about a month ago when it was announced. Now that we've had some time to shoot with it extensively, we've gathered our thoughts on using the latest X-Trans camera from Fuji. The X-T1 offers much of what the X-E2 does, including a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor with on-chip phase detection. More than that, it offers an SLR-style sculpted handgrip and weather-resistant sealing. Click the links below to find out what the X-T1 is like to use in the field.

We've also added 40 images to a gallery of real-world samples taken in Japan, during and after the recent CP+ show in Yokohama. Click the link below to go straight to the gallery.

336
I own it
540
I want it
52
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm X-T1

Comments

Total comments: 493
123
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (15 hours ago)

THIS SITE IS CALLED DIGITAL PHOTO REVIEW, PLEASE GOTO DIGITAL VIDEO REVIEW TO LOOK FOR A REVIEW ON VIDEO ABILITIES !!!!!

0 upvotes
Paninni
By Paninni (17 hours ago)

My new XT1 died after 3 weeks. The dial for Metering Area got stuck. And Zoom dial or Settings dial died completely. Whatta damn dissapointment. Otherwise camera is capable of good photographs, except for sports. The sample you are looking on here and complaining is nothing i have seen on my photo quality from XT1. I see this as fraud photo.

0 upvotes
aktunav
By aktunav (19 hours ago)

I think Fuji did this camera for compete with OMD family...

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sarge39
By sarge39 (2 days ago)

Looks like most comments are from people who don't own or never used a Fuji X camera. I own a X-Pro 1, X100s and the X-T1 as well as the OM-D E-M1 and a couple of Canon full frames DSLR's including the 5D MKIII. I use the X cameras when I want a lighter set-up and they are awesome. The image quality is fantastic for an APS-C sensor and better quality than my OM-D E-M1. I feel that poor picture quality with the Fuji X cameras is more user error or lack of knowledge about the system than the camera itself. I'm not a Fuji fan boy and I think the OM-d E-M1 is a beautiful design but not as good image quality as the X cameras. I have taken many shots with the X-T1 that you couldn't tell the difference between the Canon Full Frame sensor. I agree with the DP Review almost 100%.

0 upvotes
philinnz
By philinnz (2 days ago)

this is the first sentence in the conclusion "The X-T1 is Fujifilm's most ambitious camera to date, and we'd have to say, probably its best"

Has DPR forgotten about the Fuji S5 Pro? That was Fuji's best camera

3 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (19 hours ago)

And it uses far better lenses :)

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
GaBen
By GaBen (2 days ago)

I'm disappointed with the X-T1. :( This is a very great camera in design, handling, speed, etc...but the X-Pro1/X-E1 have much better in IQ (by SOOC JPEG). X-Pro1 and X-E1 SOOC JPEG's have much more vibrant, brillance and sharpness too. The Auto White Balance works better by the older models...And no, I do not want to take pictures in RAW. So, please Fuji, make a better jpeg engine in the first firmware update!

1 upvote
jackspra
By jackspra (2 days ago)

I want stills and video capabilities for my money.I like the look though.

1 upvote
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (2 days ago)

This Fuji got my attention and I was giving it serious thought. Like I posted before I like the Olympus lens line up better. But now after reading Steve Huff's review of it and seeing the SOOC JPEG's and several other things he said the E-M1 does much better I am now convinced the E-M1 will be my next system. I'd advise anyone considering this camera to read Steve's review. He never pulls punches and gives honest real world use reviews.

3 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (2 days ago)

There is not a single serious photographer paying attention to S.Huff. Honestly the man is a joke photography wise.His ''reviews'' are good enough for baby boys.
Same applies to another of a similar kind: K.Rockwell.
Apart from this issue,I believe that EM1 is a better choice indeed..

5 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (1 day ago)

But what do you really think? Try to be nice.

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (1 day ago)

I can agree with the K Rockwell knock, I always thought he was a douche. But I have never seen anything Steve Huff may have done to make me think he is anywhere near on the level of KRock. Maybe some so called serious photographers could learn not to be sheep if they actually read his blogs and watched his videos. There are so many SO CALLED serious photographers who use FF just because they have been told that is what they HAVE to use to be taken seriously. I read a comment the other day knocking the E-M1, the XT-1 and the new Sony A7R saying non of them can be used because clients will see others shooting with D800's and know that your gear does not add up. So they will go with the D800 shooter. No talk of skill, marketing, etc. Only gear, and far too many people cannot see past that part of photography. What gear a person uses.

1 upvote
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (2 days ago)

This is an excellent camera for everybody who want trees to look like some funny computer generated things (or maybe a painting?).

Take a look at this image.....
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/samples/lmo/DSCF3822.jpg

It certanly looks like a 'beautiful' painting and not something comming from a brand new camera. When this image is viewed at 100%, everything becomes a complete mess!!

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (2 days ago)

What an original comment. Ive never heard that one befor3. Except curiously none of my foliage shots, processed with Capture One, look like that. It's not exactly like this hasnt been discussed ad nausuem is it. Adobe processed files with trees look bad. Also soft because the default sharpening settings are wrong. Use another converter, no problem, if you dont want to use anoher raw converter, dont buy an XT1. But let's not repeat the same old same old when its not even true.

2 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (2 days ago)

I know my comment isn't very original, but it is nevertheless very true. And no, with very small variations, you get the same (not so funny) result from ALL available raw converters (ACR, Photo Ninja, Silkypix.....). I know because i've tried them all.

1 upvote
Josh Bailey
By Josh Bailey (1 day ago)

Wow, that is terrible looking indeed. Thanks this just helped me knock the xt1 off the list. Looking at A7, A6000 or Em1 only now

0 upvotes
kiw
By kiw (2 days ago)

Depreview: "Pair the X-T1 up with lenses like the stellar XF 23mm F1.4R or the XF 56mm F1.2R and it can produce absolutely wonderful results, aided substantially by its ability to focus them accurately wide open without any fuss. The net result is that the overall image quality it can offer, as a combination of camera and lens, is exceptional. The flipside though is that the lenses are all pretty expensive; as yet Fujifilm doesn't offer anything to match the smaller, slower but cheaper primes you'll find in other systems."

I dont understand why Dpreview say that fuji's "super primes" is to expencive ?
Same type of lenses from Canon and Nikon is even more expencive, and what about Leica ? :-)))

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
random name
By random name (3 days ago)

unfortunately FUJI keeps ignoring requests to upgrade AE bracketing features to a minimum of +/- 2 EV
currently stuck in : AE Bracketing (±1/3EV, ±2/3EV, ±1EV) which is insufficient for HDR photography. Why do they omit a basic feature present on all cameras including my 5 year old Pentax is a mystery.
Will pass on this one

6 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 days ago)

You can still bracket yourself. It's just a flick at the dial. It can move the camera while on a tripod.
With Pentax you can't use bracketing with timer or remote. At least not on the k500 and k30. Which renders the feature useless on tripod since you will move the camera when pressing the shutter.

3 upvotes
Valeriu 64
By Valeriu 64 (3 days ago)

I suspect, the people at dpreview have a problem with white balance, when test Pentax cameras, because the all turns brown color.
In reality , Pentax have the best auto white balance. I am tests Nikon D800, Nikon D4 compared to Pentax K-5 and I can say that Pentax is over.
I'm sure Pentax K-3 is even better, but do not understand why dpreview turns photo from Pentax to brown color. There's something suspicious, at least for me.

Valeriu

5 upvotes
JohnNewman
By JohnNewman (3 days ago)

Why can't even professional writers learn the difference between 'discrete' and 'discreet'? Nice review, very useful but spoilt at the end by poor literacy.

As far as the Fuji system is concerned, it's the lenses that are the stars. If only Nikon would match them for APS-C they'd be on a winner but seem to only be interested in trying to make folk upgrade to FF. As long as they pursue this course, Fuji and Sony will continue to grow and make a killing (I ignore MFT as quality and sensor wise they cannot compete - but ok when less than best quality is sufficient).

3 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (3 days ago)

To me the test shots look extremely overcooked and unnatural, more like being the result of some fancy in-camera signal processing, then the result born out of the sensor/lens combination. F.x, dense forest and tree branches look like a complete mess. Look at the trees in this sample image....

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/2891183.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2/20140417/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20140417T105007Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=77e9f3009c359cb3860fbd97b9955c0cf943c0d084875bf84a48747e4246d994

3 upvotes
Class A
By Class A (4 days ago)

The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).

Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.

The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).

So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?

Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?

BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (4 days ago)

You can spin things many different ways.

An X-T1 with an extra battery will give you 700 shots and it is still much, much smaller and lighter than th K3

Frame rate - I am sure that fraction of a frame will make all the difference between getting the keeper shot or missing it. Lol. You lost credibility as a photographer here.
No point in arguing any longer.

4 upvotes
tlinn
By tlinn (4 days ago)

K3 fan by chance?

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (3 days ago)

While I couldn't care less about the K3 comparison (sweet camera tho), I do wish there was a site doing more systematic testing of AF and tracking... It's seldom evaluated in anything but the most subjective of tests, and it's particularly relevant in mirrorless reviews. Hasn't that been their one Achilles heel vs DSLR? Should be testing rigorously and scientifically any time any kind of improvement is claimed (E-M1, A6000, X-T1, etc).

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (3 days ago)

Seems tough DPR new tests are made for serious gear like K-3. Not "convenient" to apply the bicycle guy AF test on Fujis, ha?
On my own review about Fuji I just reproved it because I couldn't find the way to set ISO in 2 moves with out loosing my subject from focus.

0 upvotes
SayKeys
By SayKeys (2 days ago)

The price of extra batteries adds up on an already expensive camera. XT-1 is a nice camera but I think it is overpriced....for what it does.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 days ago)

@waxwine - when you say 'Not "convenient" to apply the bicycle guy AF test on Fujis' how does that relate to the AF test on page 10, which was shot alongside the K-3?

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (2 days ago)

Richard, I skip that page, my mistake, my excuses for my comment about it, XT-1 traking AF looks really excellent. Otoh, even you mention ISO setup as a Con, I believe that it's a hughe CON, because on real shooting action, you must have fast control, at least, of the 3 principal parameters of photography: shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

0 upvotes
mamiller
By mamiller (4 days ago)

Intriguing camera, very retro-attractive. But 350 shots per battery charge is a show stopper for me. Why is dismal battery life not listed as a con in the review summary? No other camera classified as semi-pro has a rating of less than 750 shots per charge, to my knowledge -- most average even more shots than that.

5 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (4 days ago)

In the world of mirrorless cameras, 350 shots per charge is very common.

And don't get hung up on lablels like "semi-pro", or "pro-sumer". There is "pro" gear, and there is everything else.

1 upvote
mamiller
By mamiller (4 days ago)

But 350 shots per charge doesn't work for me. And it is definitely a con in the context of the review, yet was omitted from the review summary.

I need/want a lightweight camera that has robust battery life and excellent image quality for two-week+ backpacking trips.

1 upvote
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (4 days ago)

Why not buy more batteries ?
Mirrorless will ALWAYS use more power since there is no OVF.

6 upvotes
mamiller
By mamiller (4 days ago)

Not a great selling point for mirrorless cameras, I'd say. Better to supply it with a battery that can muster enough power to at least make it competitive, in terms of shutter activations per charge, with full-featured DSLRs, which the reviewers were comparing it against.

For my personal purposes, I'm willing to carry an extra battery in my backpack when I hike, but not 4 or 5 extras.

1 upvote
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (4 days ago)

"Why not buy more batteries ?"
Because i make time-lapse with my cameras. And i can't change a battery during a sequence shoting.
(I can make something around 2000-2500 shots with my K5 and one battery, i've preset a mode where i turn down every stuff than consume batteries, like LCD screen, AF...)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (3 days ago)

? I don't get the problem of carrying an extra battery ?

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (3 days ago)

If time lapse is your concern you should know by now that a CIPA rating that takes screen use and even flash into account is all but useless. Mirrorless cameras often 2-3x the number of shots they're rated for during something like a time lapse. Displays can be shut off or dimmed, electronic shutters change the power profile, etc etc.

0 upvotes
Fri13
By Fri13 (3 days ago)

Usein grip and you can swap battery without problems.

1 upvote
ebbo
By ebbo (3 days ago)

350 shots is over nine rolls of traditional film, with the money you've saved, buy yourself a spare battery

0 upvotes
Menedem
By Menedem (16 hours ago)

Could this adapter help with your timelapse photography? http://www.amazon.com/HQRP-Adapter-Coupler-Fujifilm-Replacement/dp/B00CRD3N5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398016079&sr=8-1&keywords=fuji+cp-w126

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (4 days ago)

Great, but you wont be able to use it. Today a certainly ill-judged judge decided to give Paul Weller £10K because the Mail published pics of his family. Several years ago JK Rowling got far more from a Scots judge for same reason. The current ruling must be opposed as otherwise anyone taking you to court will win damages for photographs which include them, and as poor people are as likely to be greedy as Weller and Rowling , it'll go on happening. I hate the Mail, its a rag, but there are a lot of incompetent judges in their dottyage in the UK now so why buy a camera??????

0 upvotes
Rbrt
By Rbrt (3 days ago)

The fines weren't for taking photographs but for publishing them.

1 upvote
OfcrMike
By OfcrMike (2 days ago)

Of course, because the only reason anyone would buy a camera would be to take photos of "celebrities" for publication. Who takes photos of anything else, right? And personal interest? What's that?!

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (4 days ago)

It's good to see Nikon and Canon boys whining after a long time. Good job fuji, keep up the good work!

2 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (4 days ago)

People rave about Fuji's output, but every sample picture I see doesn't strike me as being anything special, in fact I dare to say very 'average' looking. I know I am missing something here, can someone help me understand this ?

7 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (4 days ago)

We all see what we want to see. As with any camera, there is always a great divide. Some people think IQ is great, others find imperfections in the image and cry "deal breaker". Realistically, people have very different opinions on what is acceptable saturation, noise, sharpening, etc.

The best way to find out is to do what I did. Buy it, shoot with it in a variety of situations, and if you like the results, you are in good shape.

I own a D600 and have owned an EM5, now replaced by the X-T1. The D600 I use as the benchmark. While the X-T1 has better IQ than the EM5, it is still not as good as the D600, but it gets close and is a compromise I am willing to make, when I want to travel light.

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (4 days ago)

I, totaly agree with that, i'm not impressed at all by the Fuji's images i've seen, except for hi-isos.
The images look like washed & blurry, i guess than Fuki puts a LOT of treatment to obtain such render.

2 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (3 days ago)

Take a look at the darker regions in the sample images. There isn't a hint of any detail in the shadows, due to the very limited dynamic range. It's horrible that this camera got a score of 84 and a gold medal reward!

2 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

I see a lot of armchair experts over here giving educated opinion by looking at web images without even owning the camera.
There is very little wrong with the t1 and I do own one. If there is a problem I am sure it is with the man behind the camera not the camera itself.

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator
By SelfMotivator (4 days ago)

Agreed with dpreview's reviews on most aspect except 2 things:

- Flash system: still the weakest link for Fuji. You can only shoot M flash. TTL is so outdated which needs significant upgrade.
- 1/4000s is HUGE limitation for fast primes 23mm f/1.4 or 56mm f/1.2. They should fix it.

Other than that, DPReview's images are as BAD as always. I know the subjective is to show how the camera performs in certain conditions but be real, pick a good place and shoot more with attractive subjects and people with good lighting.

0 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (4 days ago)

Agreed on the flash system. It sucks. My issue is not with the 1/4000 shutter speed limit, as much as with the lack of flash exposure compensation controls. The small flash included with the camera is just like all other mirrorless camera flashes, very much useless.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (4 days ago)

DPR moved from London to Seattle. What kind of weather do you expect? Dreary colors are hard to avoid. At least they stayed consistent! ;)

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator
By SelfMotivator (2 days ago)

Bad excuse. A good photog does not blame equipment or weather. He needs to produce the best results regardless situation.

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator
By SelfMotivator (2 days ago)

I only own x100s recently and shoot mainly with Canon 580ex using Pixel cable. Haven't tried to use Pocket Wizard since I'm trying to go light all the time. Definitely love its ability to shoot flash at a speed as high as 1/1000s - 1/2000s.

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator
By SelfMotivator (2 days ago)

I love shooting portraits, particular outdoor on location. Therefore, my shooting style requires for fast lens and ability to shoot wide-open at f/1.4 - f/2.8 so I'm limited by that.

0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (4 days ago)

''Object of desire?''..frankly no.
Nice camera..right.
DPR tries hard to justify the 84 score by this fancy title.

8 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (4 days ago)

A better title would be "flying off retail shelfs?" YES

2 upvotes
Fri13
By Fri13 (4 days ago)

I believe it is for many......

2 upvotes
Clint009
By Clint009 (4 days ago)

By Richard Butler (From DP Review) Trying to categorize anything becomes difficult near borders between those categories.

However, the alternative is that we have a scoring system that tries to directly compare a $150 compact to a Nikon D4S. It wouldn't make sense to award all compacts around, say, 20%, with high grades being reserved for pro-level DSLRs. At which point you need categories and borders between them.

Canon and Nikon both re-semented their markets, about a generation ago, with the D7000 and 60D both being a touch cheaper and simpler than the D300S/50D class of cameras. In hindsight, perhaps these should have stayed up in the Semi-Pro class, but that's not the decision we made at that time.

So, the reviewer is discussing the choices consumers might reasonably be making, even though it's hard to get the same flexibility in our scoring system.

0 upvotes
HeyItsJoel
By HeyItsJoel (4 days ago)

Question about Fuji lenses:

1. Is the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 a REAL "f/1.2" in comparison to their FF lens counterpart (i.e.: Canon 50mm f1.2)? I mean, does it give the same effects a typical f/1.2 lens would give like a dreamy bokeh, shallow DOF, etc...

2. Is the 23mm f/1.4 a REAL "f/1.4"?

I'm inquiring because Fuji is asking a premium price for those lenses and I'll glad pay it, if the playing fields are equal.

1 upvote
akhyar
By akhyar (4 days ago)

The DOF for the 56 f1.2 is equivalent to f1.8 on FF lens, but the light gathering is still f1.2

2 upvotes
the-dude-75
By the-dude-75 (4 days ago)

of course is the lense a f1.2 or f1.4 whatever lense you are talking about. and in most cases the bokeh is quite good. regarding the dof, learn the differences in sensor size and you can answer your question on yoir own. f stop is alsway fstop but will not give you thes ame dof on different sensor sizes!

1 upvote
lonelyspeck
By lonelyspeck (3 days ago)

yes. f/1.2 means that the ratio of the lens focal length to its clear aperture size is 1:1.2. the f/ratio or f/number determines the speed of the lens or the luminosity of the image at the image plane.

Depth of field at any given subject distance is not dependent on f/number, it's dependent on clear aperture size. The 56mm f/1.2 has a clear aperture size of 56mm/1.2=46.67mm which is comparable to an 84mm f/1.8 lens (84mm/1.8=46.67mm) in terms of depth of field and full-frame field of view.

Comparably, the 23mm/1.4 has a clear aperture size of 23mm/1.4=16.43mm which is comparable to a 34.5mm f/2.1 lens (34.5mm/2.1=16.43mm) in terms of depth of field and full-frame field of view.

0 upvotes
HeyItsJoel
By HeyItsJoel (3 days ago)

Thanks for the input akhyar.

the-dude-75: if you don't have a constructive answer to offer, shut your pie hole! Dude....

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (2 days ago)

A 56mm f1.2 lens has shallower DOF than a 50mm f1.2 lens at the same subject distance due to the longer focal length, regardless of format.

An APS 56mm lens will have a quiet different field of view to a FF 50mm lens tho, which is where this "not real aperture" silliness comes from, as an 85mm f1.2 FF lens would have shallower DOF than a 56mm f1.2 APS lens.

0 upvotes
edwy
By edwy (4 days ago)

I'm not a big video shooter but why buy a camera with such disappointing video performance? I've owned Nikons since '78 (FE) and I've had problems but my 7100 is cheaper to buy and does a great job of taking fotos. Why pay more for the camera and invest in new lenses?

2 upvotes
Iznogoud
By Iznogoud (4 days ago)

By the same token, why change at all if you're happy with what you have???

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (4 days ago)

Well I never shoot video and I DO mean never, so why wouldnt I? I think we can assume that potential X-buyers have other interests...

1 upvote
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 days ago)

If you rarely shoot video why would the video performance matter when buying a camera, unless you need it for bragging rights. If you do shoot video, buy a different camera with better video support.

0 upvotes
PatMann
By PatMann (4 days ago)

For one thing, you actually have lenses to "invest in" for the Fujifilm. Unless you want an 18-xx zoom or a giant expensive lens designed for full frame, there's not much from Nikon for APS-C. Where's the 24mm f/1.4 for the 7100? Oh, it costs $2000 and weighs over a pound and uses 77mm filters - is that the one you're getting? Is Nikon going to give you a 50-140 f/2.8 zoom? How about a 14mm f/2? 12mm f/2.8?

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

I have couple of sonys with exceptional video and I never use it anyway. So why would the disappointing video suddenly bother me on Fuji?
I bet many people are like this. Taking good photos and taking good videos are two different things. For each we have appropriate gear.

0 upvotes
RikPiks
By RikPiks (4 days ago)

I am surprised to see Exposure Bracketing remains stuck at +/- 1 stop, even though the compensation dial will now handle 3 stops.

People have been asking since the release of the Fuji X cameras that the bracketing range needs to be at least 2 stops to allow quick capture for HDR shots. Just now all X cameras fail badly on that point, and there is no reason that should be so.

4 upvotes
sdgreen
By sdgreen (4 days ago)

I can't understand it either. This restriction is the sole reason I'm ruling this system out. I would use it for a lot of hand held bracketed wide angle shots for computer blending. A 3 shot latitude of 2eV is not enough..it needs to be 3eV min. i.e. a bracketing increment of AT LEAST 1.5eV. The LUMIX GX7 is the same.

The OMD & NEX systems are OK: both go to 2eV.

Seems a very short sighted design by Fuji & Panasonic

2 upvotes
Fri13
By Fri13 (4 days ago)

OM-D E-M1 has:

3F 2EV
5F 2EV
7F 2EV
3F 3EV
5F 3EV

So you really can choose between 3, 5 or 7 frames and 2 or 3 stops.

There is no 1 EV at all as that would be just useless and you get that done from single RAW file easily.
So think about shooting 5 frames each 3 stops from next, you get nice 15 stops 14bit HDR in RAW, what means you have actually 18 stops possibilities. MORE than most people would require.

And combine that with that amazing IBIS and you are shooting easily 3F 3EV shots even on low light (correct shutter speed being 1/2 or 1/4)

4 upvotes
random name
By random name (3 days ago)

you are absolutely right AE +/- 2 EV is absolute minimum and present on most cameras...I will not but this model without an increase of bracketing to 2 EV since I cannot do really good HDRs without it

2 upvotes
lonelyspeck
By lonelyspeck (3 days ago)

I'm an X-T1 owner and I definitely agree with this. +/-1eV bracketing is basically useless. Real bracketing with such a high dynamic range sensor should allow at least 2 to 3 eV.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

It is the mystery of Japanese developers.... someone somewhere on top said 1ev is plenty and everybody else is afraid to suggest something else.

0 upvotes
berbmit
By berbmit (5 days ago)

An amateur's experience constrained by a price-point:

After my D5100 and all lens was stolen I had the chance for a clean start. The X-T1 became the replacement kit; body and three lens graciously payed for by insurance. It was a hard call to move away from the familiar Nikon range, but after a week I'm convinced that I have a whole lot more camera for the replacement price than I could have got with a Nikon!

In particular, I am amazed at the improved quality (subjectively speaking) compared to my old Nikon RAW (using Lightzone/DCRAW under Linux) ... the difference is immediate to my eye.

The handling is really nice; more compact without feeling too small, solid to hold, great build quality. The EVF in low light was a surprise ... as if I was using night vision goggles ... fantastic for composing a low light image.

I'm still getting used to the idea I bought non-Nikon, at this point I am having no buyer regrets and would not trade back to a Nikon price-parity equivalent.

4 upvotes
maxola67
By maxola67 (5 days ago)

It sounds like a very programmed speach from a pie eater)))
BTW, CIPA numbers are rather disappointing for a camera with such price tag and such high fps.
Maybe it should be positioned as a classy JPG camera?))

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (5 days ago)

I'd really love to believe your story, but when I do the math it dosen't even come close.

The new Fuji xt1 with 3 Lenses will set you back roughly 4000 €.

The D5100 with three standard lenses would not even come close. Unless you were using the most high-end Nikon lenses, which is not likely with a D5100.

But I could be wrong and there is some missing piece of information which will make it all add up.

6 upvotes
Sebastien Guyader
By Sebastien Guyader (4 days ago)

4000€???? I don't know how you got that price. From Amzon.fr, you can get a X-T1 kit (with 18-55) + 35mm f/1.4 R + 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 R for less than 2800€, taxes included.

2 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (4 days ago)

So are we comparing entry level DSLR's with advanced level mirrorless cameras now? The two have so many differences I wouldn't even know where to start, ranging from handling and weight to features.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
1 upvote
berbmit
By berbmit (4 days ago)

So ... giving the seeming dispute about my sense of reality (and sorry maxola67 if it sounded like a prepared speech): I had the following stolen
Nikon D5100 camera body
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR IF-ED
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di Macro Lens for Nikon
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Nikon
Nikon Speedlight SB-400

Insurance paid out ZAR31k (South Africa, equal to ~2123€), and the new X-T1 + 18-55 lens, 55-200mm lens, and 60mm macro lens, came to a touch over that price. The store gave it to me for what the insurance was willing to pay.

As a hobby photographer, I reiterate my initial comment ... better quality than I had from the D5100 setup, and for my purposes much nicer handling. YMMV.

2 upvotes
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (4 days ago)

Guess I was thinking of other lenses. IMO the 35 1.4 does not make a lot of sense if you have the 18-55 2.8 kit lens.

The XF55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS is in the same league as the Nikon 55-200 VR which sells for 150€ NEW. I am pretty sure that the equivalent Fujinon is not worth 700€. But there appears to be no alternativ from Fujifilm.

I was thinking of the Fujinon 55 1.2 for 999 €
and the fujinon 10-24 4.0 for 999 € ...
and then I think you also need to purchase a flash.

A new D5100 with the sigma 17-70 2.8, 35 1,8 or 50 1.4 and the 55-200 VR will set you back roughly 1000€. If you get the new D5300 add another 300€ which brings you in at 1300€ NEW with stellar image quality at 24MP.

Hard to top I would say.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (4 days ago)

Including the flash, insurance paid out about what those items (or equivalents) cost today.

Since Fuji doesn't seem to understand the concept of a kit lens (where they're supposed to be cheap and inferior) I think he got a better setup. Easily. Plus it's more compact, and he likes the handling.

As far as CIPA sales numbers, I haven't seen them for this camera, but they should be lower than necessary because demand is outstripping supply. The kit lens is so good (and such a good value when bundled with the body) that the body-only package is the only thing in stock at most places.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

Berbmit, I think you got a very sweet deal.

0 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (5 days ago)

I swear this thing should have a CONTAX RTS label on it.

3 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 days ago)

Or Fujica ST.

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (5 days ago)

Fuji, I hereby arrest you for molestation...of RAW files.

1 upvote
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (5 days ago)

Compared this X-T1 to my Sony a7R in the store recently. I must say the Fuji and lens felt much better in hand all around. The slightly bigger-er size and extreme high quality feel made my little Sony feel cheeky.

Now I know where the old Minolta designers must have reincarnated after Sony killed them off. Big difference when a camera company designs compared to an electronics gaming company.

I've been with Sony since the beginning, and with Minolta for 20 years before that. This Fuji X-T1 felt like a real photographers tool compared to the Sony a7 techno-craft wizbanger.

7 upvotes
A7matt
By A7matt (4 days ago)

I did the same on the weekend and thought the opposite. I thought my a7r felt a lot more solid..funny that

1 upvote
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

Well and a guy with k-3 would feel the pentax is much better, a canon guy will claim his canon feels better and Nikon person will do exactly the same..... see pattern?

1 upvote
ethwit
By ethwit (5 days ago)

I have been using X100 for the last few years. I wish it focused better/quicker, I wished it had interchangeable lenses, etc. This camera ( X-T1) improves on all of the features of my X100, except.... the optical viewfinder. I find the electronic viewfinder does not come close to true optics. Not in the bright sun light. It's a a compromise. Thus, I will keep using my X100 until Fuji comes up with an X-T1 OVF. I have a feeling i will not have to wait very long.

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (4 days ago)

I believe you are waiting for the X-Pro 2.

4 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (4 days ago)

Those without the money or real need always wait for the next model.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (5 days ago)

Wish to see Fuji has weather-sealed lenses wider than 28mm (35mm equivalent).

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (5 days ago)

Not impressed with any new camera offering.

3 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (5 days ago)

My dear, dear Canon colors...

0 upvotes
bawbaw
By bawbaw (5 days ago)

comparing the raws of all the fuji marque bodies... there is nothing in here to justify going from the x-pro to this

2 upvotes
tripodfan
By tripodfan (5 days ago)

well, that's only if raw quality is your only concern when buying a camera. what about quality of evf, better autofocus, a dedicated ISO dial, a smaller body, weather-sealing?

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (4 days ago)

How about not going from X-Pro1 to X-T1 but getting both? T-X1 is faster, much better with longer lenses which require EVF to work at all, etc, but X-Pro1 still has that certain feel I like with normal and wide-angle lenses. With 56 and 55-200mm lenses X-T1 is clearly better. That is why I have both (and X100s).

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

Xpro is a blast with 35 and 18 but after that things are better for xt1, it is more universal camera for lenses.

0 upvotes
sensai
By sensai (5 days ago)

Nice camera design. Will wait for the successor though...

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (4 days ago)

People with no money or no need always wait for the next model...

0 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (5 days ago)

I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?

Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.

DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.

17 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (5 days ago)

I´m happy that it´s not only me who sees something wrong...

6 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (5 days ago)

Are you looking at the JPEG or RAW studio samples? Daylight or low light?

It's well established that Adobe handles Fuji sensors' RAW files much worse than their competitors (i.e. Capture One and others) do. And as important as JPEG files are in some shooting scenarios, I wouldn't use them to judge the absolute quality of one camera vs. another.

Can you please explain what you're seeing, and a specific location or two where you see it? Perhaps you have a very good point, but I'd like to know where it is.

1 upvote
crashpc
By crashpc (5 days ago)

Does not matter if it´s RAW or JPEG. See my first post. 1) left down diagonal linings (for resolution) bar. Very bad artifacts/moire in fine lining. Sharper and stronger noise at ISO 200-800 (see left womans face, label on "balsamic honey vinegar" bottle). I still think that camera is good. I just don´t accept that overly good rating. It is just not that good.

2 upvotes
jimkahnw
By jimkahnw (4 days ago)

I'm wondering how the in-camera processing is set. I have an OMD EM1 and out of the box the jpgs, and RAWS interpreted from the jpgs settings via LR were really degraded. I set turned off all in-camera noise reduction and the image quality was vastly improved. Is the same thing going on here with the XT-1?

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (4 days ago)

There's definitely moire. If that's a deal-breaker, you probably shouldn't buy the camera.

But I'm not seeing the other problems. I compared it to a number of cameras, including the X-A1, but mostly to the D7100 and K-50 (for simplicity's sake). I compared ISO 200, 800, and 6400, some of them in low light. I downloaded the RAW files and viewed in Capture One.

Another poster complained that the X-A1 gave a more 3 Dimensional appearance. This may be true for some objects (not all, I think), but they both out-do much of the competition. And of course lenses play an important role in all of this.

In resolution (not looking at line charts only) the X-T1 generally performs as expected. It outdoes the AA-equipped K-50, but falls short of the 24MP D7100. Looking at the RAW files, noise and dimensionality are generally in the middle of the pack, or exceed the competition. Even at ISO 6400 the Balsamic Honey Vinegar bottle and the coins look good, possibly exceeding the D7100.

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (4 days ago)

Sniff sniff, I smell some astroturfing.

0 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (4 days ago)

DStudio: compare that vinegar yellow label on bottle with EOS 100D, ISO800, JPEG/RAW. It´s more like sharpening artifacts based on standard noise. Also that big wide brush looks more detailed on cheaper cameras (again EOS 100D) I know it is different class, but one can have that decision "this or that" and it is more expensive, so not only me have the reason to look somewhere else. So again - not bad product, but not that good and quite pricey in comparison.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (4 days ago)

crashpc: I took a look at what you said. I find it easy to forget sometimes how many variables are in play with these studio scenes, and I'm not careful enough in my judgements. Without the full context I'm easily mislead. Please set up the studio comparison tool like this to see what I mean: Daylight, Full size, ISO 800. X-T1, 100D, K-50, K-500 (because the latter two are identical but for minor features).

Upper R corner: Even with Adobe RAW, X-T1 wins. JPEG, XT-1or K-50
UL corner: RAW, X-T1; JPEG, K-500 (why not identical K-50?)
LL: R, X-T1; J, X-T1 (why Pentax so weak?)
LR: R, 100D or K-500; J, K-500.

The point is, the focus is sightly different on the K-50 and K-500 (same lens). What makes us think it's identical on the others? Even at f/5.6 differences show up with slightly closer or further objects, and lenses are imperfect. And some lenses just render with nicer colors or more dimensionally.

Bottle label may win on 100D; coins and Beatles (threads clear) on X-T1. Who wins?

0 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (4 days ago)

Who wins?
It´s the camera which suits your intentions, hands and taste. There are aspects where each one is the best, and if one needs it, it really is the best. That´s real life ranking and decision. Did your setup, and saw what you think. It really is not easy to judge.

I don´t believe 100D is plain better. I just commented on XT-1 rating as being almost superior (while being killed in many aspects by cheaper cams) which does not sound as fair rating to me. Especially when DPR called the same result more like medicore/standard good on those cams. It can be based on different class rating, but if so, it looks like lower class DPR clasification, which would make uneducated Fuji/m43 fans think too much about it. Actually it did. You can read back some thoughts like "other fans will turn pale after they realize that high rating". And I just yawn most of the time or comment....

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (4 days ago)

Thanks for looking at it.

Except for moire, I don't see anywhere that the 100D "kills it."

I do see the X-T1 beating the 100D, especially at ISO 6400. It's beating the 70D as well. It's pretty plain to see.

In fact, the closer I look, the more I understand these complaints are red herrings. At ISO 6400, the mushiness, or noise, or both, is in the Canon files, Mr. Eaton. It must scare some people to see Fuji advancing while Canon (which is a good company) is mostly standing still. Don't worry, Canon will move again - in the right direction (and hopefully far enough).

But in the mean time, the LEAST helpful thing for Canon is if they believe those who say they're doing great when they actually need to make some major advancements!

0 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (3 days ago)

This is why we choose very different cams. I see more noise on Fuji image at ISO800 (see left womans face), and while I keep low on ISO, you know... This high ISO beating is obvious even for me, but I can do a bit better denoise for final image. I wouldn´t use Fujis anyway until resized down, and then it´s not that bad for Canon with my procedure. I must say still "tad" worse. Hope there will be better products soon anyway.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (3 days ago)

You can do well with the lower end Canons as they are now, even without them making any improvements.

But I don't think the Fuji is overrated either, and the guys at the local high-end shop (no P&S, only ILCs like Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Leica) also think it's the best new camera in a while, and are constantly backordered (and the assistant who works there is still waiting for his, because he's last on the list due to his discounted price. But it's his first new camera in years.)

0 upvotes
corbus
By corbus (5 days ago)

DPR - generally I like your reviews.

You write in Final Words that Fujifilm X-T1 "...sits in much the same bracket as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony Alpha 7..."

But when I shall comparing these cameras I find that you haven't placed the X-T1 in the same Category as E-M1 and Alpha 7.

What's the reason behind that unlogic decision?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (5 days ago)

This is obviously a great camera. I almost hate looking at the specs and comparing it to my D7100's. (I love them, and appreciate the low cost primes, the Nikon 50mm 1.4 is never far away, and some of the great Sigma's like the 18-35 1.8, among others) That said, I would have considered this a couple of years ago, but I am probably moving on to the 4/3's system over the next 2-4 years. I want lighter / smaller. I recently purchased the Olympus OMD-M10 and I am integrating it as a backup into my photography business. With the right lenses and enough practice, I am getting "good enough" results...and its just so much lighter / smaller. In a generation or two (meaning 2 years) I can easily imagine the 4/3 system matching the DoF capability of APC cameras. It is close now with the Olympus 45mm prime. At that point, I will leave APC just like I left FF. If this had been available a couple years ago, I would have gone to this. It's always another shiny object...now lets go take some pics

0 upvotes
Matz03
By Matz03 (5 days ago)

how is 4/3 going to match Dof of APS-C cameras in 2-3 years? F0.75 lenses?

4 upvotes
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (5 days ago)

Ah, you are technically right about that. That said, I can do a very good facsimile with a longer prime or zoom at f1.8, something that will be available at usable focal distances soon enough. I am quite practical about this. Can I blur my subject enough and get the bokeh I want with a 4/3s camera. The answer is "yes" but only with one lens I have seen. There will be more, probably lots more.

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (4 days ago)

In the future we can do it using software.

0 upvotes
MV Atlanta
By MV Atlanta (5 days ago)

I am trying to decide between the E-M1 and X-T1 with a focusing speed (both outdoor and low light) being a priority. It is frustrating to repeatedly read "focus improved over X-E1" or "fastest focusing Fuji so far" - This is virtually useless information for comparing the two cameras. Both I and Usain Bolt are faster than a sloth but saying that "I am faster than a sloth" does not inform anybody how I compare to Usain. This is beyond obvious I have seen a virtually similar language in other professional review sites and no discussion on how it compares to E-M1 focusing speeds in REAL LIFE settings.

The only logical explanation is that the manufacturers sensor some observations in exchange of providing free samples, early access, etc. Nothing negative about the DPR staff, the site is great; this is just a reality of life.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (5 days ago)

I've used both, but obviously with different lenses. The M1 IMO is faster.

1 upvote
photo perzon
By photo perzon (5 days ago)

I have both and I see no AF difference. Maybe 10% difference.

0 upvotes
Josh Bailey
By Josh Bailey (4 days ago)

no difference or 10% difference. Which is it?

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 days ago)

In REAL LIFE settings there are lots of variables, and any comparison with the E-M1 will depend substantially on the lenses you choose to use. Overall the E-M1 is probably a touch quicker, but with the faster-focusing Fujifilm lenses the difference isn't huge (and the X-T1 counts as 'fast enough' in practical terms). If you use slower-focusing lenses like the 35mm F1.4 or especially the 60mm F2.5 Macro, the X-T1 will obviously lag behind - unless of course you put a slower-focusing lens like the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 on the E-M1.

For the record, manufacturers don't censor or place any conditions on anything we write in reviews.

2 upvotes
HeyItsJoel
By HeyItsJoel (5 days ago)

I used to shoot with a Fuji S3 Pro. Then I switched to mirrorless and now I'm shooting with the Olympus EM-5. Like many others, I'm stuck between XT-1 and the EM-1.

I love the dedicated buttons on the XT-1. But it would be hard to give up the touchscreen feature of the Olympus. It is SO convenient to just touch any focus point on the screen and the camera instantly shoots! I found this very useful when chasing my little nieces around. I searched the article but I don't think it mentioned a touchscreen focussing on the XT-1?

Also, I'm not entirely convinced about the XT-1 colors. They're great when photographing people. But for landscapes, I don't know... Is it just me or are the greens and blues a little 'off' to you? I'm seeing yellow-green grass and cyan blue skies in those sample pics.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (5 days ago)

The grass is always yellow-greener, Joe.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SimonWilder
By SimonWilder (5 days ago)

Having used the X-E1 for almost a year the samples in this review seem a little uninspiring, my X-E1 files seem richer in colour and depth

3 upvotes
Erik Pavirik
By Erik Pavirik (5 days ago)

Seriously, this camera is not for hardcore pixel peepers. The water color effect is unnoticeable in protraits under significant amount of magnification. i made a test out of curiosity.

Taken with X-t1, xf 18-55mm f2.8-4
in camera setting:
NR: -2,
Htone: -2
Htone: -2
Color: 0
Sharpness: 0
measured in picassa, this magnification is around 400%+

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/13875511904_9108836733_b.jpg

edit: Here's one with highlights

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/13875657083_92e2705fd1_b.jpg

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
dmstraton
By dmstraton (5 days ago)

I think it is for hardcore pixel peeprs. Just not using LR or ACR. The pixel level detail with PhotoNinja is astounding, and it's very good with Iridient. With no green mush. Comparable to my 5D MkII - though with 20 more MP, my D800 is king.

0 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (5 days ago)

It is understandable if single-shot autofocus with fast lenses is more accurate than that of SLRs, but how is it compared to S-AF of a camera like XE-1, for instance? I know that XT-1 is way faster than XE-1, I'm just asking about accuracy.

0 upvotes
areichow
By areichow (5 days ago)

It's no different. Both rely on CD for final AF lock.

0 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (5 days ago)

@areichow But they had never made such strong statement before regarding S-AF accuracy of other mirrorless cameras with fast lenses, E-M1, for instance.

0 upvotes
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (5 days ago)

Thanks dpr for this review. And thanks too for the chest up portraits in samples. That f1.2 56mm is something else...

0 upvotes
afm
By afm (5 days ago)

No mushy greens or waxy skin tones like the X-E2 then although it has the same sensor and processor!!

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (5 days ago)

Only a JPEG issue. Different JPEG processing? RAW is exactly the same as all other Xtrans cameras.

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 days ago)

The watercolor look from this camera is unacceptable (e.g. as shown by Steve Huff).

5 upvotes
57even
By 57even (5 days ago)

How often do you have to repeat yourself. Steve Huff seems very pleased with his XT1, and most everyone else has found various solutions to the LR/ACR sharpness issue.

1 upvote
HFLM
By HFLM (5 days ago)

Initially I was skeptic about Xtrans, too. But after reading some scientific publications on random color filter arrays (CFAs) I got very interested, since this opens up many possibilities to get rid of artefacts and handle noise differently (peak S/N is similar compared to Bayer sensor, however the coherence and distribution among chrominance or luminance noise is different and more pleasing to the human eye). Although happy with my D610 and OMD I told my wife that my next camera will be a Fuji, just out of scientific interest ;-).

4 upvotes
Erik Pavirik
By Erik Pavirik (5 days ago)

i made a simple test out of curiousity. you can see for yourself.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/13875511904_9108836733_b.jpg https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/13875657083_92e2705fd1_b.jpg

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (5 days ago)

True, you find this with current Raw converters or OOCJs. I'm talking about the potential inherent in this CFA. It will take some time until state of the art algorithms are used, now found in scientific papers. It's possible also, that you won't get the same amount of fine detail on the pixel level, but you get other advantages like more pleasing noise (although noise is not miracolously gone, if the same amount of light hits an Xtrans or Bayer sensor, it's just distributed differently after demosaicing). Careful noise reduction could give you similar pictures for Bayer sensors, too (there was a comparison of XM1 and XA1 on fujirumors some time ago). But you can effectively eliminate many other artefacts. You need to weight what is more important to you.

2 upvotes
sound1992
By sound1992 (4 days ago)

The watercolor effect can be a problem processing XTrans if you insist on using LR, I've never had an issue with it since I use other converters. I wouldn't trust anything on Steve Huff's website. He calls EVERY Olympus & Panasonic lens "legendary", and has never been a fan of the Xtrans sensor. It's clear he's a huge Olympus/Leica fan if you read his reviews. Despite his claim to call it like it is, I can't help but feel all his reviews have a anti-XTrans tint to them (even the so-called positive review for the X-T1).

I own both an E-M5 (used to own E-M1) and an X-E2. The Olympus cameras are definitely faster on AF, but IMO the XTrans cameras are a step above in IQ. I use both systems and they are both great tools. I end up using the Fuji a lot more simply because I prefer the IQ. YMMV.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (5 days ago)

Great review, really enjoyed that, thanks!

However I am struggling to understand how, in The Final Word, the Fuji is compared with 5 cameras, yet four out of five or 80% of these are not even in the same category, according to the Compare mode tool.

As the line between camera classes/categories become increasingly blurred, is this evidence that the Compare mode tool and it's categories are becoming redundant? In this instance comparing to the demonstrably out-of-date 7D and E30 is just silly. The Editor's own differing choice of cameras in the article summary just reinforces this.

Surely this discrepancy is something DPR would be wishing to address at some stage soon?

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 days ago)

Trying to categorise anything becomes difficult near borders between those categories.

However, the alternative is that we have a scoring system that tries to directly compare a $150 compact to a Nikon D4S. It wouldn't make sense to award all compacts around, say, 20%, with high grades being reserved for pro-level DSLRs. At which point you need categories and borders between them.

Canon and Nikon both re-semented their markets, about a generation ago, with the D7000 and 60D both being a touch cheaper and simpler than the D300S/50D class of cameras. In hindsight, perhaps these should have stayed up in the Semi-Pro class, but that's not the decision we made at that time.

So, the reviewer is discussing the choices consumers might reasonably be making, even though it's hard to get the same flexibility in our scoring system.

3 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (2 days ago)

Thank you.

0 upvotes
Rod McD
By Rod McD (5 days ago)

I've already bought one. I didn't wait for the reviews. It's a great camera. Love the EVF and manual focusing aids. The Fuji standard zoom and 14mm prime are excellent. And it takes almost every DSLR lens ever made. Better still, every FF lens offers some movement on a TS adapter. Very happy.

1 upvote
Ben Stonewall
By Ben Stonewall (5 days ago)

Is there an adaptor that'll allow the use of Sony lenses?

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (5 days ago)

No. Sony lenses lack an aperture control so you cannot use them except wide open. So no one has designed such an adpater.

0 upvotes
gekka
By gekka (5 days ago)

For Sony Alpha lenses see
http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (3 days ago)

Yes there is a Sony adapter and it has its own switch to adjust aperture, although it is not very precise.

0 upvotes
Peter62
By Peter62 (5 days ago)

Buy the X-A1, get the same image quality.

3 upvotes
electrophoto
By electrophoto (5 days ago)

Well, no - it is NOT always just about IQ.,...
simply for the handling alone the X-T1 has far more appeal than the X-A1... not to mention the build-quality... not saying the X-A1 is bad in this regard, far from it, but the X-T1 is in a different league (weather sealing, magnesium... )
And last but really not LEAST: VIEWFINDER... the X-A1 has no such thing.

So no, the X-A1 whilst offering the same sensor (most likely) and similar output is quite a different camera.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (5 days ago)

Buy the X-A1, get different image quality, because it uses a conventional Bayer sensor. The X-M1 will give essentially the same image quality, but in very different body style.

2 upvotes
kaxi85
By kaxi85 (5 days ago)

The Sensor is - of course - the same, only the color pattern is different. IQ is almost the same ( i have a x-e1 and x-a1 ).But the X-T1 is still a superb camera.

1 upvote
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (5 days ago)

The image quality is not the same. In most cases XA-1 is my prefered choice because the output from my X-E2 (same image quality as X-T1) tends to look very 'flat' when the light isn't absolutley perfect.

5 upvotes
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (5 days ago)

Its certainly a nice little Camera. However for me the price point is too high.
Overall I think the lenses need to come down in price by 30%, the reasoning I have for this is because the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is at 700€ and that is a reference Lens to me. The Camera itself will come down in price anyway over time, but I do not see myself spending that kind of money for Lenses that other Vendors have priced more reasonably.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 493
123