Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X-E2 Review

March 2014 | By Richard Butler, Andy Westlake
Buy on GearShopFrom $936.996 deals


Based on a production Fujifilm X-E2 running firmware v1.2

The X-E2 is the mid-range model in Fujifilm's X system of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, sitting between the relatively affordable X-M1 and X-A1 twins, and the unashamedly high-end X-Pro1 and X-T1. It's an update of the X-E1, which we liked a lot for its combination of 'old school' handling and excellent image quality, giving it our Gold award in our review.

The X-E2 is superficially very similar to the X-E1, with the same basic body design and control layout; at a quick glance it's almost impossible to tell them apart. It keeps the same top-plate layout, including analogue shutter speed and exposure compensation dials, and has the same 2.36M dot OLED electronic viewfinder. The rear of the camera is still covered in buttons in much the same places as the X-E1, but their functions have been rearranged.

The headline updates are the sensor and processor: the X-E2 sports the same X-Trans CMOS II sensor as we first saw in the X100S, which includes on-chip phase detection elements for autofocus, and in concert with the EXR Processor II promises much improved autofocus speed. It also gains Fujifilm's rather basic but easy-to-use Wi-Fi system for sharing images. There's also a much nicer rear screen: a 3", 1.04M dot 3:2 aspect ratio unit, and a whole host of further tweaks and improvements. The net result is a camera that retains all the best bits of its predecessor, but has also been improved in many respects.

Fujifilm X-E2 key features

  • 16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor
  • EXR Processor II
  • ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 25600 expanded (JPEG only)
  • 7 fps continuous shooting; 3 fps with continuous AF
  • Lens Modulation Optimizer (for sharper JPEGs when shooting at large or small apertures)
  • 2.36M dot OLED electronic viewfinder
  • Top-plate analogue shutter speed and exposure compensation dials
  • 3" 1.04M dot 3:2 fixed LCD (non-tilting, not touch-sensitive)
  • Built-in Wi-Fi for image transfer to smartphones or computers
  • Full HD movie recording (1920x1080/60p, ~38Mbps bitrate), with built-in stereo microphone
  • 2.5mm stereo microphone socket, also accepts electronic remote releases
  • Available in silver or black

The X-E2 - not revolutionary, but distinctly evolved

Alongside the most obvious changes, the X-E2 adds a wide array of improvements and refinements compared to the X-E1, including a sensibly-revised control layout. The top-plate shutter speed and exposure compensation dials have been tweaked, with the latter now offering a range of +/-3 stops in 1/3 stop increments. Instead of a combined AE-L/AF-L button the X-E2 has separate controls for each, whose behavior can be user-defined. The rear plate controls have been rearranged, and four buttons are now user-customizable. There's also a number of small changes in response to user feedback, including the ability to specify a minimum shutter speed for Auto ISO, and live view exposure preview in manual exposure mode.

The back of X-E2 is slightly rearranged compared to the X-E1 (right), with some of the the buttons serving different functions. It's dominated by the 3" 3:2 1.04M dot screen - a big improvement over the X-E1's 2.8" 4:3 420k dot LCD.

The result may not be enough to tempt existing X-E1 owners to trade in their year-old cameras and upgrade, but that's not necessarily the point. In general, the days when photo enthusiasts could expect significant advances in speed and image quality with each year's new model are long gone. Instead the X-E2 is designed to keep the line up-to-date against the current competition, to draw new users into the system, and it does that pretty well. Impressively, Fujifilm has extended many of the firmware-based improvements to X-E1 customers - the company seems determined to be seen to support its existing customers.

Changes/improvements compared to X-E1

The list below summarizes changes relative to the X-E1 - some more significant than others (Fujifilm says there are more than 60 in total). Many of these reflect users' requests for operational changes and new features; some of them count more as bug fixes than anything else. But Fujifilm has to be given huge credit for listening and actively responding to such feedback.

  • Exposure compensation dial offers expanded range of +/-3
  • Shutter speed dial adds 1/180sec X-sync position, and increases separation of 'A' position
  • Separate AE-L and AF-L buttons
  • AF point selection moved to 4-way controller (reflects recent X-E1 firmware revisions)
  • Old AF point selection button is now customizable Fn2 - sets white balance by default
  • Four customizable buttons in total (Fn1, Fn2, AF, AE)
  • Repositioned 'Q' button (less likely to be pressed accidentally)
  • View mode button removed (now a menu setting)
  • Low-speed (3 fps) continuous shooting mode, with focus tracking and live view between frames
  • AF-C no longer limited to centre of frame - uses same 49 point array as AF-S
  • Configurable Auto ISO (max and min ISO, minimum shutter speed)
  • Exposure preview in Manual exposure mode (can be disabled in menu)
  • Three manual focus aids (magnified view, peaking display, digital split-image)
  • Face detection autofocus/autoexposure available (enabled as menu setting)
  • JPEG-only bracketing modes hidden when shooting RAW
  • 'Advanced Filter' creative shooting modes (JPEG-only)
  • Multiple exposure mode moved to drive menu, grouped with panorama mode
  • 14-bit Raw recording
  • 1.8x faster file write times
  • Improved EVF framerates in low light (60 fps vs 20 fps)
  • Zoomed-in focus check view available in AF mode (by clicking rear dial)
  • Conventional playback and file naming of images shot in continuous drive mode
  • Images can be deleted when viewing them zoomed-in
  • Exposure settings can be changed when AE-L is engaged

The world's fastest autofocus?

At launch, Fujifilm proudly claimed that the X-E2 offers the 'world's fastest autofocus' of 0.08 sec - an attention-grabbing statement designed to dispel the reputation the X system gained in its early days for slowish performance. The small print is revealing though - Fujifilm's tests used the XF 14mm F2.8R wideangle lens and the camera's 'High Performance' mode, which is disabled by default and has to be turned on in the menus. As tends to be the way with these things, you're not quite going to see that speed in day-to-day shooting.

The X-E2's tracking autofocus is substantially improved too - on paper at least. With the camera in its 3fps 'Continuous Low' speed and the focus switch set to AF-C, the camera can re-focus between frames, and show a live view display too. The focus point for AF-C is no longer limited to the centre of the frame, but can be moved around freely. Strangely though the live view feed doesn't show up during continuous shooting in other focus modes - the camera plays back your just-taken shots between frames instead.

Lens Modulation Optimizer

The X-E2 is Fujifilm's first interchangeable-lens camera to offer its 'Lens Modulation Optimizer', as previously seen on the X100S and X20. This uses Fujifilm's knowledge of each lens's characteristics to adjust the in-camera processing and sharpening, in an attempt to combat diffraction and lens aberrations. The idea is to give sharper out-of-camera JPEGs when shooting at large or small apertures. The concept isn't exactly new - Raw developers such as DxO Optics Pro and Canon Digital Photo Pro do much the same thing - but it's only just starting to find its way into in-camera JPEG processing engines.

The Lens Modulation Optimizer function is compatible with all of Fujifilm's X-mount lenses, although it appears the camera firmware will need updating when new lenses are launched to fully understand their characteristics. It can be turned on or off in the menu, so you don't have to use it all the time if you don't want to, and it can also be applied to individual images during in-camera Raw conversion.

Movie mode updates

The X-E2's movie mode still feels like something of an afterthought on what is primarily a stills camera (there's no record button, so it's accessed as a drive mode), but Fujifilm has added some extra capabilities. It's now possible to choose a Film Simulation mode, and adjust exposure compensation during recording. You also get a choice of framerates, but this is limited to 30fps or 60fps.

Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS II sensor

The X-E2 uses Fujifilm's X-Trans CMOS II sensor, which employs a novel color filter array to suppress color moiré. This in turn means it doesn't need an anti-aliasing filter, and can therefore (in principle) offer higher resolution compared to other cameras with the same 16MP pixel count but conventional Bayer-type sensors. You can read more about the technology behind this in our in-depth review of the X-Pro1.

When the X-Trans CMOS sensor it first appeared, third-party Raw support was patchy at best, with even the mainstream converters struggling to deliver sharp, artefact-free results. Since then, though, much has changed, and recently we've both seen a wider variety of choices, and a general improvement in results. Most recently, in a hugely welcome development, Adobe has started to add support for Fujifilm's Film Simulation modes.

The X-E2's sensor also includes phase detection pixels to assist autofocus, as previously seen on the X100S. There are 86,000 of these all told, arranged across 36% of the sensor's area in the centre of the frame.

Kit options and pricing

The X-E2 is available in a choice of silver and black finishes, either body only at a list price of $999 / £799.99 or bundled with the premium XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS zoom for $1399 / £1199.99. These are the same as the X-E1 at launch.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 283
12
ChrisPercival
By ChrisPercival (1 month ago)

I'm seriously considering this camera but have one remaining concern. Looking at the studio test scene there are two patches of resolution lines that show a strange type of moire/crosshatch. These are the bottom two of the series that runs diagonally from the lower left to the upper right through the center.

I haven't seen this effect on any of the sample images posted. Has anyone noticed this effect in any real world images?

0 upvotes
ChrisPercival
By ChrisPercival (1 month ago)

What lens and settings were used for the studio test scene?

0 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (1 month ago)

Can we please stop with the lower marks for bloody poor video!!! this site is called Digital Photography review, it you insist on scoring cameras down because of video make it a totally different section or start a Digital Video Review Site, i'm bored about the lengthy failings a camera his in its lack of video......

7 upvotes
fabrica64
By fabrica64 (1 month ago)

Well... many people here are interested in video functionality, I don't see why it should not be taken in consideration. It's a separate rating so you can ignore if you want

5 upvotes
Lawrencew
By Lawrencew (1 week ago)

Well I can't be the only one who wants to take top quality stills AND top quality video, but not have to lug two separate cameras around.

I would seriously consider the X-E2 for its stills capability. But as long as the video is poor then it isn't even on my selection list.

0 upvotes
larryis1
By larryis1 (1 month ago)

I am considering this camera, although concerned about the review finding relating to JPG waxy skin tones. Does anyone know what this really means in practical terms. Can't see waxy skin tones in sample gallery. Help...

1 upvote
mO0nkey
By mO0nkey (1 month ago)

I bought the X-E2 beginning this year. I had some doubts, but mostly concerning the AF. I was pretty sure about the IQ though and the 23mm 1.4 made me decide to go for it.

Having experienced the camera I can say I'm really impressed with the AF! But the only thing I can complain about is the fact that on images taken beyond ISO 3200 the skin tones look unacceptably waxy. Mostly I use RAW's, but the inability to use the JPEG's when in a hurry (or sending them right away by wifi) is a bit annoying. The more so, because even with noise reduction set to the lowest it's not much better.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MrChristopher
By MrChristopher (1 month ago)

Could someone elaborate on the inability to use a flash remotely (wireless) as claimed in this review? My x100 can fire a Fuji or YN-560II flash in "commander" mode, does the XE-2 not have this ability?

0 upvotes
Mupepe
By Mupepe (1 month ago)

Hi, X-E2 can trigger a flash unit remotely. But, unfortunately, only one small flash unit in Fuji line (I think it is the EF20) is wireless. Mine is the more powerful EF42, but it is not wireless).

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

@MrChristopher - the X-E2 can't 'control' an external flash (setting its output), it can only trigger it. Nikon, Olympus and Canon all have systems that allow you to remotely control the output of external flashguns - that's what the X-E2 (and Fujifilm in general) is missing.

0 upvotes
725C6C2B8E504AA2A4936EF7A90D77FC

A question for Richard B: Does the 'Commander' mode of the X-T1 operate in a similar way? (Ie Trigger only and not full flash control)

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (3 weeks ago)

The X-T1 behaves in exactly the same way, because Fujifilm simply doesn't have a wireless TTL flash system.

0 upvotes
hoxton fives
By hoxton fives (1 month ago)

hoxton fives

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (1 month ago)

It is the bread and butter of DPR and its members to compare cameras based upon functionality and IQ hair-splitting; and I enjoy this nearly as much as anyone because I am fascinated by cameras. But any camera in the rough price range of the X-E2 will be a good tool in the right hands. Certainly qualitative differences do exist between cameras, and, quite appropriately, comments are made about those differences here.

My concern, as an photography instructor, is that newer photographers are too influenced by minute differences in quality and performance (this not referring to things tangibly applicable in terms of proper camera types for different situations - sports, inconspicuous street work, etc.). The visceral impact of this camera or that one in an individual's hands - that subject rightness or wrongness - is going to be more important to producing quality images/art than whether in-camera noise reduction is too heavy-handed in a particular camera. Given the advantage of better perceptive skills and concepts, a photographer will generally produce more compelling work with my Samsung NX300 than others using a full frame camera of any sort. This is, of course, is widely understood by most experienced photographers (although sometimes I do wonder if it is), but such an observation should be presented periodically to those new to the media that might otherwise feel priced out of the possibility of producing excellent photography.

12 upvotes
Bill3R
By Bill3R (1 month ago)

I have seen beautiful photographs produced by a pin hole camera. I often think of the quote, "The best camera is the one you have.", when I find myself tempted by the latest, best new models.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

I agree - all this hair splitting over IQ is over blown. What really matters about a camera - how quick it is to respond to user inputs - AF speed - are talked about only briefly and not really quantified in testing. For my type of shooting, I need fast AF speeds. After reading this review, I have no idea how the Fuji AF speed compares to say Nikon D7100. There is no quantitative test devised for that purpose.

1 upvote
srados
By srados (1 month ago)

I personally find overexposed images from this camera, lack of details in shadows.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (1 month ago)

It seems that with the advent of X-T1, the X-E2 refresh is pretty much uninteresting. One tier cheaper though.

1 upvote
Pippo50
By Pippo50 (1 month ago)

Ho acquistato da poco la fuji xe1, la qualità delle immagine è molto buona anche a 3200 iso, la messa a fuoco è un po' lenta rispetto alla mia Nikon D90,
quando mi segnala il verde la messa a fuoco corrisponde , ho acquistato successivamente oltre al 18-55 il 55-200 una buona ottica, ma ho rilevato un po' di gioco nell' incastro dell'ottica nella sua sede, nel complesso sono soddisfatto.

0 upvotes
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (1 month ago)

per google... for the spanish challenged:

I recently purchased the fuji XE1 the quality of the picture is very good even at 3200 ISO, the focus is a bit 'slow compared to my nikon d90, when I noted the green focus is, then I bought the 18-55 over the 55-200 good optics but I found a little 'game in the' interlocking lens in place, overall I'm satisfied.

0 upvotes
loadofcobblers
By loadofcobblers (1 month ago)

You are Italian-challenged.

7 upvotes
Anastasios Papatsoris
By Anastasios Papatsoris (1 month ago)

It is clear the dynamic range of X-E1 is substantially better than X-E2's capturing much more shadow detail.

1 upvote
$$Policy$$
By $$Policy$$ (1 month ago)

Is there a reason for this, in your opinion?

0 upvotes
$$Policy$$
By $$Policy$$ (1 month ago)

How did you determine this difference? Do you own both cameras? There is a learning curve associated with the XE2's Dynamic Range control settings, which can make a substantial difference in IQ.

0 upvotes
NOLA4LIFE
By NOLA4LIFE (1 month ago)

$$Policy$$ any tips on those settings would be appreciated. Still getting to know my X-E2 but enjoying the hell out of it. Thanks.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (1 month ago)

There is no difference in dynamic range at all. There is a difference in the default tone curve used in each camera for processing JPEGs. What this has to do with dynamic range (it should actually be JPEG exposure range) I will never know.

Since nearly everyone boosts contrast in post processing, Fuji merely adjusted the default tone curve to be more contrasty. You can adjust the camera many ways to offset this if you insist on shooting JPEGs.

3 upvotes
George Christofi
By George Christofi (1 month ago)

Anastash eixa kai thn XE1 kai thn XE2 einai kai h dio kameres to idio
H Xe2 einai pio grigorh sto focus ara an exis thn XE1 allaxe tin kai tha dis megali diafora ston xirismo kata ta alla poiotita oikonas einai to idio

0 upvotes
fuxicek
By fuxicek (1 month ago)

back in film days I used compact minolta http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Freedom-Zoom-150-camera/dp/B0000AUFK7.. I wonder, how did they squeeze the full frame into tiny body with tiny lens and why its not possible with digital?

2 upvotes
afterswish1
By afterswish1 (1 month ago)

Does it have an LCD screen covering most of the rear surface of the camera? Is a digital camera's sensor, including power and data connections, as thin as a piece of film?

Is the lens on the Minolta interchangeable? The answer to the mystery is but a few seconds thought away ;)

1 upvote
Causio
By Causio (1 month ago)

1. It's not a dslr (and is it that smaller than the sony a7)?
2. That lens: 37.5-150mm f/5.4 - 11.9, 6 element/6 group construction
Well... you get what you paid for I guess? :)

1 upvote
More On
By More On (1 month ago)

It's very clearly softer than the OMD-10. As is the T-X1.

Compare some text, especially at higher ISO's. I'm talking JPG OOC so it's nothing to do with RAW conversion.

What's that all about?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Do you use the inferior Adobe software to post process? The RAW images looks rather soft compared with m43.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

m43 isn't a raw extraction process.

And yes, I understand that you probably know that, but that's what you implied.

When I process XE2 raws with ACR 8.4, they look plenty sharp, so I just don't understand the "inferior" thing.

Suggestion: Download the raws, and process yourself with: ACR 8, PhotoNinja, and CaptureOne (skip Silkypix).

1 upvote
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (1 month ago)

I copied the test scenes of both X-E2 and D7100, and compared those in Photoshop CC, JPEG, ISO 6400. It seems to me that the Fujifilm IQ (low noise) is due to very strong processing of the images in the camera. By minor adjustments I got the Nikon images to have better IQ with respect to noise. No reason to switch from Nikon to Fuji. BTW, today's mirrorless cameras are too small for big european hands. Cameras like D7100 do have the 'right and real' size. But this is my personal opinion only. Cheers.

4 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (1 month ago)

I find it strange - the tendency to convert simple personal preference into something, seemingly more universal. No criterion could possible exist to definitively advantage one or the other of the models you mention. And this idea of an ergonomic determiner seems to ignore that humans tend to adapt quite well to different positioning of hands on tools of all sorts, regardless of the size of said hands. In the days of film, some of the most modest sized rangefinders didn't lead to a parade of claims of poor ergonomics.

0 upvotes
Polytropia
By Polytropia (1 month ago)

DPreview can't even afford softboxes?!

1 upvote
malteser01
By malteser01 (1 month ago)

Sirs, every now and then I hit a problem with my XE2 and I wonder if you saw this in your testing. Every now and then I focus on something and get the green confirmation box but the subject on which I focussed is out of focus! I've sent the camera back to Fuji and they confirmed that it was all within tolerance, but this keeps happening. Have you seen this? Any observations/suggestions? This happened just the other night when taking a shot of my wife at a restaurant across the table. I tried focussing three times in succession without moving. The whole photo was out of focus every time. Once I moved, it focussed perfectly. Don't know what to do...oh and this happens with both 18-55 kitlens and 35mm/1.4.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
raygraham
By raygraham (1 month ago)

I occasionally get this with my XE-1 and I was beginning to think that I was doing something wrong but clearly Fuji have a glitch which needs sorting out. Otherwise I am delighted with the camera and I am considering the new XT-1....

0 upvotes
malteser01
By malteser01 (1 month ago)

I used to have an XE1 and never had a problem with it. I wouldn't have changed to the 2, except it was stolen. So I wouldn't say fuji clearly have a glitch per se, not on the basis of 2 reports of an issue!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (1 month ago)

That sort of question is what the FORUMs are for.
I'd be on the lookout for a firmware update, but according to malteser's experience with his xe1, it doesn't seem like they want to address that.

0 upvotes
Polytropia
By Polytropia (1 month ago)

Gasp! You mean there is an AF system that's not _100%_ accurate?! What is this, 1992?

0 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (1 month ago)

I had this happen when I tried a friend's X-E2 with 35mm lens on a sunny day. Then it also happened while testing out the X-A1 and the 18mm lens in a well-lit store. Tried 3 times and I always get the green dot focus confirmation but the image is clearly out of focus.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
malteser01
By malteser01 (1 month ago)

Actually poly, in 1992 I had a Canon EOS650 and I can confidently say its autofocus was never foxed. The odd thing is that I never had this problem with my XE1, never! Maybe it IS a firmware thing then...

0 upvotes
More On
By More On (1 month ago)

Seems this is standard fare on Fuji's. It's certainly the case on my x100s. If there's something contrasty in the background (even outside the square) it'll pick it 2 out of 3 times. So when the focus is described as "fast" it's not telling the whole story.
In the short time I've played with an X-T1 it appeared to exhibit the same trait. Nice camera though.

1 upvote
$$Policy$$
By $$Policy$$ (1 month ago)

Check the position of the Focus Mode Selector (8) AND that your index finger isn't interfering with the AF-assist illuminator (12).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
malteser01
By malteser01 (1 month ago)

This happens in good light as well as bad. Focus mode selector is always in S.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (1 month ago)

I'm pretty tired of Nikon's weird green color cast, I'll tell ya that. And the ugly way that highlights blow out on the human face. But I'm also being forced by clients to shoot video, and I would love to shoot with Fujis starting today but only stills/video camera that has usable autofocus at a reasonable price is the Panasonic G6. So there you have it, everyone needs a little different feature set.

1 upvote
raygraham
By raygraham (1 month ago)

Take a look at Ken Rockwell's site as he has a way of adjusting the green cast out which is a common Nikon problem and which I sorted with my D600. From memory I think you step up the magenta but take a look and see because he knows his stuff and his advice is free.

1 upvote
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (1 month ago)

Why are all the Canikon fan bois running so scared over these Fuji cameras?

Is it because Nikon's woeful jpeg engines and Canon's outdated sensors are developing into festering sores on the buttocks?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (1 month ago)

I'm sure that both Canon and Nikon are working feverishly to match Fuji's "wax-like" skin tones. :-)

4 upvotes
Shunda77
By Shunda77 (1 month ago)

I'd take Fuji's skin tones over the crap that Nikon cameras spit out any day. I am a Nikon shooter by the way, but just don't prescribe to this brand loyalty bs that drives so much discussion on this site.
Nikon = lots of time post processing
Canon = weak dynamic range and outdated sensor performance.

3 upvotes
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Fuji is sure doing something right! Nikon and Canon are clinging on to their old technology.

That said, I'll wait for 2nd or 3rd gen sensor from Fuji before buying into yet another system

It is still just a Bayer sensor after all.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (1 month ago)

I like Fuji but has your photography improved is question. It's just a device and I think it prolly hard to buy a bad camera nowadays.

1 upvote
Provia_fan
By Provia_fan (1 month ago)

Photography is no longer what you can do with you camera, but what can your camera do for you, if I am judging by some peoples perspectives from their comments.

2 upvotes
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Well, most of the time is it the person behind the camera that is the limiting factor. But as for DR, then our eyes are far superior still.

0 upvotes
vincent0923
By vincent0923 (1 month ago)

despite the fact that the iso rating is over stated. the iso 6400 X-E2 shots still beat many other camera's iso 3200 shots.
I really hope Fuji would allow Auto iso max 12800, which is more like iso 6400 for other brands.

I can also see that the X-pro1 retains better detail at high iso, giving a notably less waxy look for skin tone

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Well that depends on whether you enjoy details or NR

0 upvotes
HarryLally
By HarryLally (1 month ago)

Slightly rose-tinted review IMO. I'm very surprised that the review didn't mention the lack of a dedicated Custom button as outlined in Michael Reichmann's article in LuLa. Also, surely the point of having an EVF is that you can put on the EVF a histogram and over-exposure guidance like flashing highlights so you can use EC to correct exposure while the camera is still to your eye. When they do that and add a Custom button, I'll get one. Longing to get rid of my heavy Canon DSLRs and those heavy white lenses, as most of my photography these days is while travelling!

3 upvotes
Anthony20D
By Anthony20D (1 month ago)

Everyday I am amazed at the level of discourse I encounter on these forums. Picture quality is subjective,
can we just agree to disagree? From the jpgs I have seen, they all look great.

1 upvote
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

All the bitch slapping going down lol

1 upvote
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (1 month ago)

What is going on, i see complete discussions deleted at least one where i was active

0 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (1 month ago)

More absolute nonsense about how these types of controls create a stronger sense of control and require a commitment to learn photography. I got a chuckle over the silly infatuation with the dedicated exposure comp dial. Why does it make a difference?

BTW, I really like the new Fuji cameras. For their portable size and image quality.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
molnarcs
By molnarcs (1 month ago)

Easy exposure compensation is the first thing I look for in a camera. The EC button is the most used button (apart from the shutter release of course) on my d800. In fact, EC compensation dials or buttons are prominently placed or accessible on all enthusiast/pro grade bodies. It makes a big difference for certain types of shooting.

Shooting events (shows, concerts, etc.) in low light means you usually stay between 0 and -3 depending on what you shoot. Stage shots need quick reaction, and there is nothing faster than flicking your thumb left or right while composing. Or you want to get a quick silhouette shot? Flick and shoot.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (1 month ago)

I understand that. What I am saying is that having a big nob right there is no simpler or quicker than what you do with your D800. In fact, it can be achieved near instantaneously with your D800 without much of a thought or movement of your finger.

0 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (1 month ago)

This camera is almost perfect for me. Gorgeous rangefinder style, oled (not sequential) high res evf, lots of physical controls, high quality fast prime lenses, great iq and dr at any iso, good af speed, decent buffer.

It just have some minuses, imo: low mp count (I'd like 24+ mp for cropping), no touch screen, no native iso 100.

0 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (1 month ago)

The review directly says that JPEGs of X-E2 are inferior to those of X-Pro1 but the score comparison chart, at the end of the review, shows something different. Why is that?

3 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (1 month ago)

Jpegs is 8bit. Raw are 12,14 bits, much better tonal quality. I shot some jpeg sooc while I was in Hawaii, because I didn't want to edit. Worst camera move I did in awhile.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 month ago)

Nice camera but I feel one flaw that was only mentioned on the "noise" page (not on the conclusion page), is actually magnified by another. Like most of the X series cameras, ISO's are overstated up to 2/3 EV (1 stop difference compared to many other cameras). But in RAW, the camera also tops out at an indicated ISO 6400. Which means that if you want to shoot RAW, compared to many other cameras, the top sensitivity is actually comparable to ISO 3200. Not exactly high in the current age, where a lot of crop cameras are already used at even higher ISO's.

And while I acknowledge that users can push RAW files further themselves, choice is removed and it does affect the LV experience.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (1 month ago)

Having to under expose and develop up is not as bad for two reasons:

#1. Fuji has a dedicated EV on this camera
#2. Fuji can push up to 3 stops up when using its in-camera RAW converter. Think they are the only ones allowing such a push in an in-camera raw conversion.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 month ago)

It's not that there are no work arounds, the point is that simple choice was removed for unknown reasons.

In A and S mode, the viewfinder will still go dark if you want to go past ISO 6400 (equiv. of about 3200...) in RAW.

1 upvote
mO0nkey
By mO0nkey (1 month ago)

'Like most of the X series cameras, ISO's are overstated up to 2/3 EV (1 stop difference compared to many other cameras)'.

That was what I thought when I first tested the camera. What? Was Fuji cheating?

But after testing the camera a little better and comparing it with my DSLR I found the truth is a total different story.

First of all the difference between my DSLR and X-E2 is different in different situations. Sometimes it's 1 full stop, then 2/3, 1/3 and in quite some situations there is no difference at all.

Furthermore (and this is the point), there is more to photography then watching the settings on your camera, for instance the actual image taken. And comparing the images it becomes obvious that the Fuji is not less sensitive at all, but in low light produces brighter images! So it's a difference in metering. And I have to say I prefer the Fuji :-)

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TorsteinH
By TorsteinH (1 month ago)

Strange, but to me the files, both RAW and JPG looks like they have a heavy noise reduction done. Faces looks like they are made of plastic! The loss of detail is obvious compared to Nikon 7100 or Olympus OMD E-M5. (Just select RAW and compare the files here at DPR) So how this camera can get a high score for image quality is hard to understand.

7 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (1 month ago)

It's been said countless times that the Fuji Xtrans RAW files shine with Iridient, Capture One 7, not with Adobe's software.

Even though this has been explored many times twenty there is still this question. As for the JPEGS- shoot out in the real world and compare jpeg per jpeg. Fuji keeps color and tone very well while having some good areas of detail too.

10 upvotes
TorsteinH
By TorsteinH (1 month ago)

I am quite sure this has more to do with the x-trans technology than RAW developer.

2 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (1 month ago)

@ TorsteinH This sofness that you see in the RAW files has nothing to do with X-Trans. This is specific to files converted by ACR or LR. Download the RAW files and use another converter yourself, you will notice the difference immediately. At present, all converters work better than Adobe products when it comes to X-Trans but, to me, Irident, Photo Ninja and Capture 1 are the best. As long as DPReview sticks to ACR, readers cannot judge the quality of Fuji RAW files easily.

7 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (1 month ago)

Torsten- and how are you quite sure? Did you try the other raw converters and see for yourself?

Based on my real world experience I am quite sure what you said is not right.

4 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (1 month ago)

Dpreview needs to get off acr abit and try some 1st party raw converter. Even Nikon files looks soft and lack of skin gradient is apparent on acr compared to their software.

1 upvote
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

My X-E1 RAF files look superb in Aperture. So do my X100S with the same sensor/processor as X-E2.

1 upvote
TorsteinH
By TorsteinH (1 month ago)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1118191/3

0 upvotes
DonSantos
By DonSantos (1 month ago)

Well I'm about so sell my "gold" award x-e2 with the awesome fuji 35mm 1.4 and upgrade the the "silver" sony a7 + zeiss 55mm 1.8.

Am I crazy?

9 upvotes
Davidgilmour
By Davidgilmour (1 month ago)

Yes, you are. Check out those A7 jpegs...

17 upvotes
Andy Dan
By Andy Dan (1 month ago)

See the light leaking problems on Sony forums :-(

4 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (1 month ago)

^^ Unless you do long exposures while shining a light straight into the lens you aren't going to face much problems.

In any case Sony has admitted to the problem and is working on a fix.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (1 month ago)

Smart move. The Fuji 35/1.4 is nice, but the Zeiss 55/1.8 is another league.

I don't understand the light leak issue. The instructions to test for it instruct you to tape over all the gaps on the lens and lens cap, and then shoot a long exposure at ISO 25600. When I take pictures, I usually take off the lens cap. Wouldn't infinitely more light enter through the lens than through the 'light leak'?

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (1 month ago)

No you are not ... if you have some FF lenses to use.
But
- accept shooting raw to get the best, jpeg are over processed, even with NR OFF.
- IQ is good on both cameras

3 upvotes
Andy Dan
By Andy Dan (1 month ago)

It's really sad that the A7 has those gimmicks because otherwise is a great camera and I'm sure that every Zeiss and G FE lenses that Sony will launch will be just as good as the 35 f2.8 at least.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (1 month ago)

Everyone always makes a big deal out of the awards, which are really just a subjective mark of how much the reviewer "loved" the camera. It don't really give any kind of indication whether one camera is better than another. Take the Nikon DF, it got a better total score than either of those cameras but no award at all.

Also remember that the Fuji combo is worth $1750 while the Sony $2700, so the reviewer will be comparing the cameras to similarly priced models, not really to each other (Eg. the Fuji may be one of the best ~$1500 cameras while the Sony is more in the middle compared to other ~$2500 cameras.)

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (1 month ago)

@AndyCrowe: You may not make a big deal out of awards, but the Gearshop and some other online retailers do, as they are selling stuff by the DPR award score. So this can be a serious marketing tool however DPR staff tries to downplay it. You cannot believe anybody in marketing. I used to be so I know

0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (1 month ago)

Not crazy, but I question if it will be worth it at the end of the day. Too much "upgrading" can be fatiguing.

0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (1 month ago)

Yes, keep your E2 and buy an A7r to complement it!

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (1 month ago)

@Mike99999
Agree, anyone referencing that test should try it on any of the OVF based cameras using the same instructions.
I'm willing to bet that 1Dc will fail as well (and more) under the same test criterias.

0 upvotes
molnarcs
By molnarcs (1 month ago)

You're definitely crazy. Sorry ;) Okey, don't take this seriously, just wanna give you some tips, because I was weighing both systems for my d7000 replacement (my current backup camera) and Fuji came out as a winner. Here is why.

1) Lenses
The selection of lenses of A7/A7r are rather poor. Let's talk equivalence here. You have a slow F/2.8 35mm lens for A7. The Fuji equivalent (23mm F/1.4) gives you two stops more light (you can shoot at ISO 3200 at F/1.4 while on the Sony you'll need ISO 12800 at F/2.8 for the same exposure. Plus you still get shallower DoF on the Fuji, so basically all full frame advantages for the A7 are negated.

Your A7+zeiss combo will cost you significantly more than a Fuji with the 35mm F/1.4, and you lose flexibility in terms of lenses.

2) Size - the A7 system will always have size disadvantage. There is no way around this - covering FF needs bigger lenses.

3) Support - when you invest in s system, this is important, and Fuji's support is second to none.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Yes. The A7(r) is underwhelming and I think one need to wait 2 or 3 gens before something good comes along. Besides Sony does not know to make lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mO0nkey
By mO0nkey (1 month ago)

It's not crazy to make mistakes.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (1 month ago)

There's just a couple of things in video they need.
It can be done via a FW update and make the xe-2 and xt-1 overall better multipurpose cameras and appeal to a wider audience.
1. 24p,25p,50p. This is the biggest one. Easy fix
2. Allow manual.
3. Better codecs. Meaning more then one.

Done.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

Until they sort out the demosiacing for movies, no amount of frame rates or codecs will help.

2 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (1 month ago)

No, firmware might, but if the processor is under power it can't record faster and highdef. The processor can't be replaced.

0 upvotes
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (1 month ago)

As expected only a poor 1% increase in score over the X-E1. Which I think is still overly generous ...because the 'newer' X cameras(X-e2, X-t1, X100s) all have major problems with their JPEG engine.

The 'newer' Fuji X cameras not only render their JPEGs in an unnatural waxy way, but even bigger problem is that their JPEGs have severe limitations in Dynamic Range. This is a problem which was NOT present in the X100, X-Pro1, & X-E1.
Simply speaking the JPEGs are nearly unusable in the 'newer' Fuji X cameras IF you are coming from the early X cameras.

It is Fuji's free choice to suddenly make their X cameras into mostly 'RAW Shooting ONLY' cameras, but I am not sure if people who bought Fuji's early X cameras will be happy & be willing to buy the 'newer' X cameras knowing that the usability of the JPEGs has been significantly deteriorated.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (1 month ago)

The DR of the jpg is virtually the same. It is the tone curve that has been adjusted. The default settings are different between the two. Seriously....instead of spouting off, actually understand what the data means. I've made huge prints from jpgs with both the new and o.d sensors. If you can't get a decent photo....the problem is you.

8 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (1 month ago)

all the jpeg's I have seen from the new X-T1 confirm what United Nations is talking about in his comment. Waxy, water color like shots, at 800 ISO more than half of the detail is gone and some parts in straight fine lines are simply missing.

7 upvotes
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (1 month ago)

@ Dave Luttmann
Wow. You sound HURT. Fanboys usually get Hurt for nothing.

No they are not the same. The default settings are different & the 'newer' X cameras( X100s, X-t1, X-E2) all need extra tweaking in JPEG & still cannot get the level of DR to match the older X-cameras in JPEG.
That is why people who have bought the newer X cameras now mainly use their cameras mostly in RAW. They realise the JPEG is lacking & realise that there are limitations to the level they can revive it to acceptable high level as seen in the older X cameras.

If you can get decent photos from your JPEGS from the newer X cameras, then it must only mean that you are a person who is easily satisfied & can live with mediocre picture outcomes.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (1 month ago)

It was the same beetwen X10 and X20
-> X20 in raw now

1 upvote
2011windmere
By 2011windmere (1 month ago)

I think UnitedNations is absolutely correct. I have the original x100, the XE1, and XA1. I love the X100 Jpegs and the XE1's Jpegs are different but also very good, BUT the XA1 jpegs are in my view simply unusable and a big step backwards. I therefore only shoot raw now with the XA1. I sold my X100S for that same reason as I found the Jpegs disappointing because of the reduced DR but more importantly because of the waxy skin tones and loss of detail.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (1 month ago)

I'm shooting with an X-E2. It produces the best jpegs I ever had from any camera that I had and that includes Sony Nex5n and em5. To say the X-E2's jpegs are useless tells much more about the 'phtotgrapher' than about the camera. It's a ridiculous statement.

0 upvotes
PrebenR
By PrebenR (1 month ago)

Any camera is RAW only as far as I'm concerned. Who uses JPG OOC in 2014?

0 upvotes
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (1 month ago)

Crap skin tones and crap video and it gets a 80 score??? Wow, someone at DPR REALLY likes Fuji's.

5 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

The resemblance to Leica's is getting fainter and fainter so the fascination should fade soon.

0 upvotes
jkspepper
By jkspepper (1 month ago)

why should it not? at the end of the day, it's whether the package is greater than the sum of it's part and many do believe the Fuji is.

I would garner that there are devices out there that may have better technical bits but may be rubbish to shoot with and/or enjoy

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (1 month ago)

Honestly I believe anyone who shoots only JPEG is not too concerned with image quality. Any discerning enthusiast who puts a high value on IQ and shoots RAW should be pretty happy with Fuji.

2 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (1 month ago)

"Honestly I believe anyone who shoots only JPEG is not too concerned with image quality. Any discerning enthusiast who puts a high value on IQ and shoots RAW should be pretty happy with Fuji."

RAW snobs. Not everyone is shooting fine art.

But seriously, the OOC fuji jpegs were arguably as good as any RAW processing, using almost all the available DR with the right settings. Unlike other systems, the only significant advantages in shooting RAW was in changing your mind about exposure and WB or fussing over noise. The OOC jpegs were a great way to avoid a lot of admin.

That's no longer true.

In the meantime, RAW shooters do have a tendency to be shooting low ISO pics, whereas the Fujis were fantastic for high ISO people pics where ultimate image quality isn't such an issue.

In any case, this is about differing needs not ultimate image quality.

2 upvotes
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (1 month ago)

Ultimate image quality is always number one in thousand dollar cameras, no sane person invests that amount to just take snapshots.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (1 month ago)

Of course they do. What do you think event photography is?

In any case, for my purposes (semi-formal portraits) the Fuji OOC jpegs were more than good enough for my clients. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time processing RAW; they won't give a darn.

2 upvotes
Soothsayerman
By Soothsayerman (1 month ago)

Who the heck uses jpeg? and why? its a destructive file format from the word go, who gives a crap what jpegs look like. If you are going to spend several grand on camera equipment, only to then shoot jpeg, good riddance to you.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (1 month ago)

You appear to be living in a bubble. Presumably the whole world should be filled with people just like you. What beautiful harmonies that would make for.

I refer you to my previous comments.

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

More fake ISO's? It's probably time for Dpreview to begin testing actual ISO's of these cameras instead of covertly changing illumination levels to match each other.

"At higher ISO settings, the X-E2 produces cleaner images than the D7100, even when compared at a common output size. However, given the longer exposure the Fujifilm requires, it's also telling to compare its performance to the D7100 set one ISO setting lower, where the difference is much smaller. It's a similar story with the EOS 70D, with more comparible results if you drop the DSLR's ISO by 1EV to more closely match the exposures."

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

We've included a test of ISO in the majority of our reviews for the past couple of years.

The fact that you then quote us referring to that testing, suggests that we're aware of this.

And we don't change illumination levels - we brightness match the images by changing exposure and we explain this (and, if I remember correctly, the rationale for it), in the article linked from the top of each comparison page. Which doesn't seem terribly covert to me.

5 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (1 month ago)

Not at all, its capabilities as a classic photo camera are obvious very very good. If this is what you want (I for one am not interested in video) then it stands out from the crowd.

4 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (1 month ago)

Thank you Dpreview for your honesty about the jpegs. Besides that great camera for stills.

3 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (1 month ago)

Another ME-TOO camera. Does some things well, other things not so well, and gracefully blends in with the crowd.

0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (1 month ago)

Not at all, its capabilities as a classic photo camera are obvious very very good. If this is what you want (I for one am not interested in video) then it stands out from the crowd.

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

Maybe Fuji can do something about that annoying blank area above the lens?

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (1 month ago)

What are you talking about? Where the flash is?

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (1 month ago)

I drill a couple of holes in it.

Jes' kiddin'! ;)

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dinoSnake
By dinoSnake (1 month ago)

While everyone here is whining and moaning like small children in regards to their favorite pet peeve of the moment, I'd like to take the time to compliment the writer for posting, IMHO, the nicest in-the-field test shots I've seen in along while on this site (in the Shooter's experience section). They show wonderful examples of some of the extra DR and JPEG processing available and are interesting, colorful and dynamic to boot.

Thank you for brightening up what could otherwise be a very to-the-point article.

26 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (1 month ago)

They also show an enthusiasm for using the camera, which is more telling than anything else.

The guy at the local high-end camera shop told me yesterday that he just ordered an X-T1 - the first camera he's bought in 5 years!

5 upvotes
SF Photo Gal
By SF Photo Gal (1 month ago)

Not that I care really, but curious how the X-E2 gets a score of 80 and Gold, yet the GX7 received a 78 and Silver; the GX7 was criticized for having only a 2 axis IBIS and none for video, yet the X-E2 doesn't have IBIS at all; GX7 has a tilting touch screen and the X-E2 is fixed and no touch feature; GX7 has far superior video and seems the IQ is about the same, and they seem to be in the same "class" so what's up with that?

15 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

Part 1: Scoring

Use the widget in the scoring panel to compare the scores and you'll see the GX7 outscores the X-E2 in terms of features and video (which is consistent with the points you've made). It also leads the Fujifilm in terms of Wi-Fi and value.

However, the X-E2 scores a touch higher in terms of image quality and ergonomics/handling. Since our scoring is weighted towards image quality, that's enough to see the X-E2 get 1% more in the overall score.

Part 2: Awards

The awards are based on how well the camera's reviewer thinks it fits what we believe to be its intended market. Silver means we believe a camera is very good, Gold means we believe it's great.

Do I believe the X-E2 is better-suited to its target market than the GX7? Absolutely. The control system is better worked out (the GX7's is fussy by comparison), and the X-E2's EVF makes the shooting experience much nicer. That, plus the slightly nicer image quality? That's enough to make the difference in award.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
33 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

@sf photo gal the GX7 IQ cannot even come close to X-Sys.

7 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (1 month ago)

a tilting touch screen is a negative in any serious camera.

3 upvotes
jkspepper
By jkspepper (1 month ago)

obviously you're not qualified to judge.

1 upvote
ric63
By ric63 (1 month ago)

WTF?
Any serious camera SHOULD have a tilting screen!

6 upvotes
LeitzKameraAktion
By LeitzKameraAktion (1 month ago)

I think Raincoat was unhappy with a TILTING touch screen. Think about it...

0 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (1 month ago)

@Butler, the GX7 shameful review continues to haunt dpr, and rightly so.
Your grand defence of the GX7 score being lower hinges on image quality. So I threw the E-M1 into your widget, and guess what? It scored higher on RAW IQ than the Fuji. Now guess what? The E-M1 has a Panasonic sensor. Hah!
You scored the Fuji above the GX7 for jpeg IQ, yet all the readers here say the fuji jpegs are bad. Hah!
You scored the Fuji way below the GX7 for video quality, but I guess that doesn't count because there aren't any images in video?
So every single aspect of your score on IQ grounds just got binned.
Widget says Fuji beats GX7 on Build Quality, but everyone says the Fuji is relatively flimsy and the GX7 tank-like (it is smaller and heavier, too).
Could go on, but no room in post.
An obvious series of blunders, running arguments with your readers, never a backwards step, staff defending other staff --- I think dpr are meeting every definition of arrogance. I don't suppose you agree, of course?

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (1 month ago)

@ RButler,

Without beating the drum for the GX7, does it really make sense to weight IQ compared to other factors, such as handling, performance, etc.? I'm not saying that IQ shouldn't be considered, but maybe it shouldn't be weighted, either. Miinimal differences in IQ (pixel-peeping at high ISO, not sure if you see a difference, then you decide that there is if you look closely enough, that sort of thing) make no difference to most (any?) of us, whereas features like articulated screens or lack thereof, manual control over video, etc. can be big deals. I for one would never choose a camera with a 1/3 stop better ISO performance over a camera with an articulated screen.

To be fair, you and your reviewers do seem to value the shooting experience more than you spend time sweating the small stuff, and you do have to deal with brand shills who whine a lot about extremely minimal differences in IQ between Brand X and Brand Y that they want you to emphasize, but still...

3 upvotes
mrdancer
By mrdancer (1 month ago)

It's because the GX7 doesn't have the built-in level.

Wait....the GX7 DOES have a built-in level! Guess it wasn't important back then...

0 upvotes
guytano
By guytano (1 month ago)

Well there is this thing called sensor size...

1 upvote
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

Yea dang that big factor

0 upvotes
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (1 month ago)

Nice review - thank you. I have an NEX-6 and am thinking about switching. After this review, still thinking... One thing the review may have covered but which I missed -- how do you change the shooting mode (Aperture preferred, speed preferred, etc).? There doesn't seem to be a dial for this.

0 upvotes
S_Michaelsen
By S_Michaelsen (1 month ago)

For P, dial both aperture and shutter to "A"
For Av, leave shutter on "A", and choose aperture.
And so forth.

0 upvotes
Chengis
By Chengis (1 month ago)

The first link in,
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=x-e2+user+guide

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

@Mike Sandman - as S_Michaelsen says, it's a question of telling the camera which parameters you want it to control.

Turn the shutter dial to 'A' (Auto) and it'll be in aperture priority mode, turn just the aperture dial to 'A' and it's in shutter priority. Turn both to 'A' and it's in Program.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Grumpyrocker
By Grumpyrocker (1 month ago)

I switched from NEX-6 to X-E2 a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't be happier with my choice.

3 upvotes
guytano
By guytano (1 month ago)

It is a nice implementation of PASM with manual controls.

1 upvote
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

Hmm a one percentage point improvement over the X-E1's score... I wonder what that's a result of? Wi-Fi? Tilitable screen?

1 upvote
kewlguy
By kewlguy (1 month ago)

For such an extensive review, why hasn't DPR tried other RAW converters for Fuji? Clearly ACR is the worst of all for processing X-Trans files including X20/X10. There are Iridient Developer, C1 Pro, PhotoNinja, and others. Of course, from the review I could see DPR loves OOC JPG too much.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

We did look at C1 Pro and didn't see the 'clear' difference you indicate.

Equally, we're not about to start depending on a Mac-only piece of software - Mac users may be more common in photography/graphics circles, but they're still a sub-set of users.

We're not going to start cherry-picking pieces of software for our main studio test scene, but include some C1 conversions in the X-T1 review.

7 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (1 month ago)

I'm glad you're including C1 conversions in the X-T1 review. I'm surprised, however, that you didn't see a clear difference on this camera. The better sharpness and noise levels were obvious to me at 100%, as well as at less than 100%. The Adobe colors also look washed out by comparison - especially in the yellow and red paints. And the bottles look much more realistic in C1.

I have to commend you on your well-done test scene - it really shows the differences!

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (1 month ago)

I have to disagree and very strongly with DPREVIEW on this again. Yes, there is quite a difference between ACR and Capture One 7- sorry guys.

I have seen artifacts from Adobe not being able to make small jumps from red to whites that Capture One can do. Careful use of the parameter called "structure" and the usual sharpness is called for here too.

Also yes, Iridient shows a better result. You can also try Photo Ninja. While I understand dpreview's desire to compare "equal with equal" the problem here is that you are in doing so:

(i) not using Xtrans to its best
(ii) you will not be comparing equal to equal just because Adobe does not have an optimal conversion for the Xtrans CFA. Bayer has been around for a while and some programs- NOT Adobe's figured it out better so far.

Why would anyone then bother really, using a Fuji Xtrans without considering putting its best shoe forward.

0 upvotes
SF Photo Gal
By SF Photo Gal (1 month ago)

@historianx - don't you think that statement is a bit of an overreach? You may like them better, and in fact, they may be a bit better, but to say "doesn't even come close" really underminds your credibility.

@Butler, in this day and age, I would think the how video is handled is very important. The review comments on how poor the video quality is, would alone, again IMO, keep it from achieving Gold status. Of course it's your publication and you make the rules, but I just can't see a camera reaching this level with a "poor" rating on a key feature. Just sayin.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
guytano
By guytano (1 month ago)

@ SF Photo Gal

Video is not a key feature for the intended market of any of the X Series cameras, and particularly the 3 top tier models.

fyi, you replied to the wrong thread.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (1 month ago)

Photo gal - sorry but video is not a key feature, certainly not for this cameras market.

0 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

Wow guess i got lectured. And i have a GX1 i will happily sell you.

0 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (1 month ago)

Mr R Butler's disdainful and high-handed dismissal of cherry-picking for Raw processing software is wrong.

That's exactly what every serious camera buyer I know does ( I bought Photo Ninja because it beat the competition ) and shouldn't we compare the best JPEG's that are available ?

If it is the extra work in identifying the preferred software that scares Mr. Butler then I am sure that a poll in the DPR forums would give the required results and learning the software packages should be simple for photography specialists.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pew pew
By pew pew (1 month ago)

Good review and nice camera : )

0 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (1 month ago)

I own and love the XE1, so probably not quite enough here for me to upgrade now.
For those commenting about sport shoot, ffs, this is just not the camera. Dont even bother trying

My one disappointment remains the video mode. Some here dont use it at all and dont care, but in a highly competitive market, Fuji just cant ignore it. I have all but replaced using my 5dmk2 now for travel and walk around and use the XE1 instead, but particularly when travelling I love to shoot video and the compression on the Xe1 is just hopeless. The video looks pixelated and is no where near the quality of video from the 5d mk2 or even from the Oly OMD.

No one is going to buy this camera primarily for its video function. No one would therefore expect to have extensive manual override on video mode, but for goodness sake use a compression that allows us to capture something of value

5 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

Yeah X-T1 is def the next stop for me. My X-E1 is one fine camera.

4 upvotes
PinPoint
By PinPoint (1 month ago)

X camera will disappoint anybody who wants a decent (not yet fantastic) video...my advice is to switch off your expensive X camera and use your Samsung or Sony hand-phone whatever to shoot video next time you are on a trip or holiday

0 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

Captain Obvious!

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (1 month ago)

Why not spend the extra $300 and get the X-T1.
Actually...I think 2-years from now...Fuji will have the body that finally works well without quirks and a good, "available" lens selection. They are getting better all the time!!!!!!

3 upvotes
km25
By km25 (1 month ago)

Finally, Fuji gets gold. Most of the complaints can be soved by firmware. May be not not the movie mode, who cares. The X-T1 should be even better. Fuji is moving along well, each camera they make moves them up higher.
It is hard to read the reviews as of late in DP, they say the camera has such great Jpegs, that RAWS is almost not needed, then they say the Jpegs look waxie, in high ISO. I have always through my X-PRO 1, if nothing else made great Jpegs. Well 80/gold is not that bad.

1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (1 month ago)

Keep Calm

and

Olympus OM-D E-M1

is

84% Gold Award

:-)

11 upvotes
JJ1983
By JJ1983 (1 month ago)

If you're going to make a haiku, make it 5-7-5 dammit!

5 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (1 month ago)

I tried as well, but the formatting of the text box on my mobile does not come out perfect :)

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 month ago)

The on-sensor PDAF now, it appears, is a mainstream feature on the mirrorless. Glad to hear it.

1 upvote
Provia_fan
By Provia_fan (1 month ago)

I agree with so many of you. That's exactly what Bresson, Winogrand, Gilden, Eggleston used to say. They packed their cameras and went home saying "Poor phase detection, no face detection and no touchable screen, no HDR mode, EVF too small and too big....can't shoot!" Because they depended on all these things, that's how they built their careers. :P

10 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (1 month ago)

Any of them shot sports in poorly lit gyms by any chance?

0 upvotes
JJ1983
By JJ1983 (1 month ago)

No. They knew it wouldn't be very interesting. So they used their cell phones.

Duh.

4 upvotes
Paul JM
By Paul JM (1 month ago)

Sports shooting in a poorly lit gym.... and you propose using a mirror less Fuji...... you must be joking

3 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (1 month ago)

"Poorly lit gym" - any sport events held there must not be important at all. I won't even go there, let alone carrying a camera LOL

2 upvotes
historianx
By historianx (1 month ago)

I'll just spray them with my White Lighting 3200 and sports reflector :)

1 upvote
Provia_fan
By Provia_fan (1 month ago)

@ Peevee1:

You're absolutely right. Sports photography was only invented last year as these photos clearly demonstrate:

http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7009/6720475647_529e507792_m.jpg

http://www.glowimages.com/_snippets/previewimage/temp/glowimagesXL_255-3689.jpg

http://www.themarinaexperiment.com/thehepcexperiment/wp-content/uploads/boxing1.jpg

http://sportswearhq.co.za/images/BounceSportswear.jpg

http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1920x1200/muammad-ali/473496/muammad-ali-gym-muhammad-boxing-legend-vintage-473496.jpg

I must say Ali looks very good for his age. And to aid photographers like yourself, maybe they should bring boxing outdoors more often.

:P

0 upvotes
Provia_fan
By Provia_fan (1 month ago)

...they had some phase and face detection systems beyond their years back then I must say. Their tilting screens allowed very clear views and choice of angles too. THEY WERE CALLED EYES/PATIENCE AND EXPERIENCE!

Shame on the rest of them for not using these tools back then. SHAME! :P

0 upvotes
Provia_fan
By Provia_fan (1 month ago)

....as a side note, why aren't football kits like this eh?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JAM0trkrWME/TmNjzt1WroI/AAAAAAAANQ0/AnGEcg3NS4c/s1600/Rod+Stewart+is+a+well-known+soccer+enthusiast.+Many+normal+pictures+of+him+playing+exist%252C+but%252C+well%252C+we+liked+this+one.jpeg

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (1 month ago)

@kewlguy I doubt you'll be able to get this up close and personal at Madison Square garden
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/12969546044/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/12880576074/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/12903572823/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 283
12