Fujifilm X-M1 Review: Digital Photography Review

Fujifilm X-M1 Dynamic Range (JPEG)

Our Dynamic Range measurement system involves shooting a calibrated Stouffer Step Wedge (13 stops total range) which is backlit using a daylight balanced lamp (98 CRI). A single shot of this produces a gray scale wedge from the camera's clipped white point down to black (example below). Each step of the scale is equivalent to 1/3 EV (a third of a stop), we select one step as 'middle gray' (defined as 50% luminance) and measure outwards to define the dynamic range. Hence there are 'two sides' to our results, the amount of shadow range (below middle gray) and the amount of highlight range (above middle gray).

To most people highlight range is the first thing they think about when talking about dynamic range, that is the amount of highlight detail above middle gray the camera can capture before it clips to white. Shadow range is more complicated; in our test the line on the graph stops as soon as the luminance value drops below our defined 'black point' (about 2% luminance) or the signal-to-noise ratio drops below a predefined value (where shadow detail would be swamped by noise), whichever comes first.

Note: this is our interactive dynamic range comparison widget. The wedges below the graph are created by our measurement system from the values read from the step wedge, the red lines indicate approximate shadow and highlight range (the dotted line indicating middle gray).

Cameras Compared

At its lowest, DR 100% setting, the X-M1 has a fairly high-contrast response, meaning that highlights clipping to white a little less smoothly than they would on some of its peers. The effect isn't overly dramatic - Canon takes a very similar approach. However, the camera's Dynamic Range modes make it easy to capture more highlight information, with a smoother transition to clipped.

Dynamic Range Modes

Moving beyond DR 100% - as we've demonstrated above - expands the range of captured highlight tones, then combined into the camera's JPEGs. At DR 200%, the camera is set to capture an extra stop of highlight dynamic range, with a risk of a fraction more shadow noise. At this point, the X-M1 offers a similar level of dynamic range to its peers.

Turn the camera up again to DR 400% and, with the added risk of low image contrast, the X-M1 is able to capture and convey a very high level of dynamic range from a single exposure. It's not something you're want to regularly use, but it's a handy feature to be able to access (especially if you're shooting JPEGs).

Dynamic range in the real world

The DR Correction feature on the X-M1 works differently than the highlight and shadow adjustments mentioned above. Without going into the gory details (which you can read about here, if you'd like), the X-M1 is able to increase the highlight range by one or two stops by raising the minimum sensitivity.

The base setting of DR100% is your only choice at the camera's native ISO of 200. Raising the DR to 200% will increase the minimum ISO to 400 in such a way that it can capture and extra stop of detail in the highlight. DR400% gives you two stops, with the minimum sensitivity set to 800. Shooting Raw images at ISO 800 / DR400% is handy, as you can reduce the dynamic range setting if your photos are looking a bit too low-contrast. You can't do the opposite, though - it's downward only.

Here's what adjusting the DR settings look like in the real world:

DR100%	DR200%	DR400%

ISO 800, 1/400 sec, f/6.4

The most obvious improvement that comes with increasing the DR setting (visible even at this greatly reduced scale) is the return of the blue sky, as well as a building on the left side. If you view the full size images, you'll notice that the hair on the woman in the striped shirt is much more detailed at DR400%.

GearShop

Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera Kit with 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Black)●	$799.00	Buy on GearShop
Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera, Body Only (Black)●	$645.98	Buy on GearShop
Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera Kit with 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Brown)●	$799.00	Buy on GearShop
Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera, Body Only (Brown)●	$699.00	Buy on GearShop
Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera Kit with 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Silver)●	$727.98	Buy on GearShop
Fujifilm X-M1 Mirrorless Camera, Body Only (Silver)●	$503.89	Buy on GearShop

Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Silver)	$727.98
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Black)	$799.00
Fujifilm X-M1 16MP Compact System Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Brown)	$799.00
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen - Body Only (Black)	$645.98
Fujifilm X-M1 16MP Compact System Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen - Body Only (Brown)	$699.00
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Silver)	$727.98
Fujifilm X-M1 16MP Compact System Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Brown)	$799.00
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera Kit with 16-50mm Lens and 3-Inch LCD Screen (Black)	$799.00
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen - Body Only (Silver)	$492.99
Fujifilm X-M1 Compact System 16MP Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen - Body Only (Black)	$645.98
Fujifilm X-M1 16MP Compact System Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen - Body Only (Brown)	$699.00
Fujifilm X100S 16 MP Digital Camera with 2.8-Inch LCD (Silver)	Too low to display
Fujifilm X-A1 Kit with 16-50mm Lens (Black)	$599.00
Fujifilm X20 12 MP Digital Camera with 2.8-Inch LCD (Silver)	$599.00
Fujifilm X-E1 16.3 MP Compact System Digital Camera with 2.8-Inch LCD and 18-55mm Lens (Black)	$999.00

Show all listings (15) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 192

I had a Pany GX1 for travel and was considering the GX7 but I've always admired the Xtrans sensor and this might be the compact system for me.

1 upvote

How come this camera got a slightly higher "Performance" rating than E-M5 while it only shoots 6 fps vs 9 (and cannot even run live view at 3 fps), focuses slower, has smaller buffer?

0 upvotes

X Trans cmos 6x6 color array with rgb best positioned is the answer for high quality of pics

1 upvote

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

DPR, you made a mistake on the page 4 of the review, in the comment to a picture:
At first glance the top layout is very similar between the two cameras, but while both have two top-plate dials, they have very different functions. Instead of the X-E1's shutter speed and aperture dials"

X-E1 does not have aperture dial, it is exposure compensation dial.

0 upvotes

Hmm
SONY NEX--6 78% - Silver award.
Fujifilm X-M1 77% - GOLD award.
Can you explain why?
Price is almost the same.
NEX-6 has viewfinde, Fuji - doesn't;

2 upvotes

Better menu, better JPEG's etc.

0 upvotes

Realy?
Menu - subjective...
Better JPEG? the difference is so minimal, that you can see it only in some crops.
How about video quality?

1 upvote

I would hope that they are not treating the X-M1 and the Nex-6 in the same class of camera since one has built in EVF.

Sony NEX-6 £600 is excellent value high end device competing with X-E1, E-M5, GX7 etc.

X-M1 £680 is a mid range device competing with NEX-5, E-PL5 etc.

The only justification for the higher price is the faster lenses available for the Fuji. Tough sell!

1 upvote

Marijus.

Valid point. Inconsistency in marking. In my school days, too long ago now to remember, lol, 78% was better than 77%. Odd then, that the higher percentage is only deserving of a Silver Award.

But when it boils down to it, whatever we may personally feel, these marks are still subjective, that of the reviewer. Others will undoubtedly think differently.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

DPR have explained many times that the scoring system and the awards are unconnected.

0 upvotes

Once use it and see picture quality of 6x6 color array of xtrans cmos

0 upvotes

Overall, I like the new tool. Sometimes the jpegs were taking a long time to refresh but I'm guessing that might be because of a lot of users looking at it right now.

It would be nice to see the Olympus E-5 represented. There's the new E-M1 and other micro 4/3 but no 4/3 system. I know Olympus has said that micro 4/3 is their future but it would be a shame to not include the E-5 and it's 4/3 lenses for comparison.

0 upvotes

Sorry - this was meant for the new test scene article - my bad

Thanks
Dave

0 upvotes

looks like a great little camera and some people just need to get over the OVF and xtrans sensor thing, I love my 5D3 and my x100s and want Canon to produce this with a 16mp CMOS sensor and fast AF.

0 upvotes

There is just no getting around that an OVF is a wonderful thing and the lack of one can certainly be a deal breaker for many people

0 upvotes

Fuji are trying to run through the entire alphabet quicker than any other manufacturer, it seems. Thankfully I narrowly escaped buying an X "Pro"1 when it was released and have had no difficulty avoiding the plethora of subsequent "X's". Thank Dog for M4/3.
Anyway Krockwell says that the "colour's no good for landscape" - so there! Imagine what he'd have to say if he ever got to handle one.
Oops. Krockwell was reviewing/imagining the X-A1 which has a Bayer sensor. maybe this one's sensor's more vegetable-oriented.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Picture DSCF6996 of the sample gallery really makes me scared. Look at the bleached colour of the foilage in the background. And the way the artwork in the pond is overexposed and glowing.

2 upvotes

I just noticed there is an error in the Pros and Cons:
the DR should be in the Cons, not pros, as it is rather poor performing compared to just about anything you care to put into the menu there - add in the Sony NEX7 just to see how good things could get.
However, the Noise performance should be in the Pros... (once again, add in the Sony NEX7, but this time to see how bad things could get).
I know the NEX7 isn't it's competition - but even the others outperform it's rather narrow DR quite easily.
What's more, the image they provide to try the 3 DR modes has a turquoise (teal) sky! (what planet would that be on? definitely not Earth)

2 upvotes

Fuji Must create Sony RX 100 anda Canon S 120 competitor.
A compact camera with BIG sensor, which work Good on low light.
There is good market in this area.
Good luck

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Todays blind test for the pixel peepers.
Can anyone tell which camera is which.
Can you get the order right.
Cameras compared:
Fujifilm X-M1
Olympus Pen E-PL5
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Sony aplha NEX-6

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2696596.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1379487830&Signature=uy4g0673EgEFUMsmH2lCEtM%2beSE%3d

0 upvotes

Sorry - image link has expired.
Try this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/568795266/photos/2696596/compare

0 upvotes

They keep on mentioning the excellent image quality, but that smudging when there's high frequency green detail in the shot seems to be a major flaw, especially when taking landscape photography.

5 upvotes

Not an issue now for months and months.... Just use a decent RAW converter like Irident or Aperture. The results are now considerably sharper than most other APS-C cameras.

9 upvotes

It's only a flaw if you plan on making large prints. Doesn't really show up otherwise.

0 upvotes

I can confirm this is not an issue in Aperture for months now.

2 upvotes

It is an issue in Lightroom/ACR.

OOC JPEGs with NR set low, don't have the issue too much.

Iridient, Aperture and Capture One all produce *excellent* details.

It really depends on the demosaicing used.

1 upvote

Something I can't quite understand is dpreview's remarks regarding the JPEG engine - the colors look odd to me, kinda artificial with a slight color cast - detail looks ok, but I see artifacts / smearing - not clean like other SLRs. I dunno I haven't used a Fuji, but I have a tough time understanding the appeal to the images. Maybe I am missing something ? I see quite a few other comments where people also are disappointed in the samples.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

and plenty where people love them too. Fuji's colours can be a little slide film like, you either love that or hate it (I love it). Having said that it's as easy to manipulate colour in post as the next camera and the render of skin is just staggeringly good.

5 upvotes

Fuji definitely has a color cast, a bit to the blue side. I love it in some images and dislike it in others. But it is there, no doubt.

0 upvotes

Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.

Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.

So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?

7 upvotes

+++

0 upvotes

Maybe you ought to learn how to use these cameras, LOL. There is an entire generation of photographers that is doing perfectly fine taking pictures with a large LCD screen as their viewfinder. I think you're just a little out of touch with what people are perfectly capable of doing these days with non-VF cameras. People are also taking great pictures with their smart phones these days too. Is it really so difficult to frame a shot with a large LCD? No, it's not. Millions of people are doing it every day. Just go to Flickr and look up NEX 5N or EOS M or any other non-VF camera, and you'll see that a lot of very nice photography is being doing with such cameras. Heck, just look up iPhoneography, too.

I think it's a generational thing. The younger generation is a lot more used to looking at an LCD, framing the shot with it, and shooting. No big deal. To the older generation, it seems like an impossibility! LOL. Guess they can't do that while holding their cane. :0

18 upvotes

it is obviously designed for people who can't read or check facts before posting... as they already offer other models with said viewfinder for smarter and more evolved people who can read and check facts before posting.

19 upvotes

I don't experience any problem shooting photos without a OVF. If I want to use an Optical View Finder I would just use my Canon 5D Mk2.

If you are a versatile photographer, you must learn how to compose with any type of finder. Try focusing with the film Hasselblad medium format camera.

Sometimes, I would actually prefer to compose and focus using the LCD screen. It is much easier for street photography. Don't you think it is good to have more choices in the digital world?

3 upvotes

I did not know that holding a camera at arms length to frame a scene was amateurish. Thanks for the heads up-- now I have to start sending some money back and reduce my rates.

5 upvotes

I was hoping to reply to T3's comment. I find your comment amazingly condescending. The generation you refer to may not mind trying to frame a picture, outdoors in bright light with a clumsy if not large LCD screen. Many of us though value precision, battery life and a OVF for it's simplicity.

I suppose I must defer to professionals, all of whom have a reason for avoiding your preferred smelly baby at arms length shot preparation.

Did you really, LOL twice while you wrote that comment or was that simply two more clumsy arrows that went astray?

2 upvotes

@T3

"There is an entire generation of photographers that is doing perfectly fine taking pictures with a large LCD screen as their viewfinder."

A generation that never goes outdoors in bright sunshine.

2 upvotes

There is no "coulda shoulda woulda". THere are TWO.. I repeat TWO higher priced models with viewfinders built in. AND they are not even expensive.

3 upvotes

Missing my point I see. Why do we need two models without an EVF. In fact why even release an M1, it's hardly different to the A1 other than sensor CFA and missing wireless flash. One of these two cameras is totally pointless, just choose which one.

0 upvotes

@thx1138

Why do we need a cheap Canon SL1? Why do we need a Pentax K500? Why do we need a Sony A3000? Why do manufacturers need an entry level camera? Why?

1 upvote

Fuji offers model with EVF, even with OVF.

0 upvotes

@ fakuryu

You are absolutely right.

Why should the user bother whether a manufacturer introduce less or more models. Isn't it good to have more choices?

Just buy the camera that suit you best.

3 upvotes

Evf sucks big time, and so is the lcd. The marketing fuss collides with the phylosophy the world is what you perceive through your senses (the mind included) and not what is passing on a tv screen.When I use a PHOTOcamera, I'd like it as it should be, and not a phone or a videocamera..

0 upvotes

Yeah well why introduce another 10 entry level models? Why would you release two cameras so close in spec it's ridiculous yet charge an offensive $200 more for one.

At least with other manufacturers there is a clear delineation between models. There is no need for both A1 and M1 and frankly based on pricing you'd have to be crazy to buy the M1.

0 upvotes

@ thx1138 - "There is no need for both A1 and M1 and frankly based on pricing you'd have to be crazy to buy the M1."

How about just offering the various models, and letting the consumer decide? Why is that so "offensive"? What you fail to see is that it's far more valuable to offer these various models, at various prices, because it increases the chances that a consumer will choose one of these models, and thus get them into the Fuji system. In essence, they are offering another point of entry into the system. You may not think $200 is a big deal, but when it comes to the finicky consumer, $200 could make the difference between the consumer choosing Fuji, or choosing another brand (like Sony NEX). If $200 can tip a consumer towards choosing Fuji, that's a big win.

As for your inane suggestion of introducing "another 10 entry level models," there's such a thing as having too many models. Duh! You have to strike a balance between too many and too few. A1 and M1 is just right.

1 upvote

Thx --- your post makes two factual errors -- the first being that there is no difference between the two models. Besides sensor there are options available in the m1 that don't exist in the a1.

The second thing is this so-called $200 price difference between the m and a models. Know how I know you're just repeating the rhetoric that's already out there? It's this, because if you actually compare actual, real world prices from real worlds retailers you'll see that the actual price difference is about $135.

Do your homework before you post.

0 upvotes

It would be great if someone put the 18mm on the X-M1 and X-A1 and compared to Ricoh GR,NikonA and 28 equivalent on E-M1 . That will pit APS-C against m43s and Xtrans versus Bayer.

4 upvotes

Xtrans vs Bayer? X-M1 vs X-A1. X-A1 will be a huge success, at the bottom for price, at the top for X100 purists that can't deal with x-trans missbehaviors. The X-M1 is twice the weight of the Ricoh GR and the Nikon A, might as well use that for lens changes, nice bounce flash built in, IS, a mini EVF, etc.

0 upvotes

X-M1 and X-A1 will fail to inspire the consumer just like Canon's EOS M. Canon had to drop pricing by over 60% to spark consumers' interest. When Fuji introduced the X-F1 to provide a more compact version of the X10, consumers avoided it like a plague and its price dropped 50% within six month.
Fuji will be better off to offer high quality products made in Japan than cheap quality "high priced" cams that nobody wants.

0 upvotes

Thanks. I'm sure fuji corp will take your opinion under advisement.

1 upvote

A cameras worth is not totally defined whether or not it does or does not have a viewfinder. It's what the photographer does with the camera that counts. Beauty is or is not in the eyes of the beholder. We all benefit from competition.

11 upvotes

I would have thought that "no eye level viewfinder" would have been listed in the "cons." This must be an oversight on the part of the reviewer, since "no electronic level" is listed.

3 upvotes

That would be like reviewing a compact camera and saying 'no interchangeable lenses.'

Electronic level is a minor feature they could have included at little if any cost. An eye-level viewfinder is a fundamental hardware feature that distinguishes this model from the one above and would utterly change what this product is and where it sits in the market.

19 upvotes

Richard your point is taken, however in the past I believe you have listed certain cost-saving features as cons, so it is kind of a slippery slope. I believe in this case it is fair to exclude it though as it is plainly obvious to anyone examining the product.

0 upvotes

I agree with Richard's position... too many people stomping into the room yelling no VF therefore it can't be a camera. through their complaining they are either saying that this model should not exist or it may only be a duplicate of the already existing xe1 or xpro1 (which makes no more sense than they are making). not glorifying with an answer those who complain the model down isn't like the model above it is the way to go in this case.

4 upvotes

And I wonder, all these people with their: NO VF and " no this and no that (usually small things) a deal breaker for me", I wonder, do these people actually own ANY camera and most importantly DO they TAKE pictures?

0 upvotes

No electronic level? Are you kidding Fujifilm?

5 upvotes

I don't know how we have managed to get by

6 upvotes

I remember when in-camera electronic levels were introduced. I thought it was a great and valuable feature, and something I would use all the time. But to tell you the truth, I have hardly ever used it. I just don't see much point when I can always fine-tune the leveling/straightening in post-process, since all my images go through post-processing anyways. My guess is that most people don't use that feature much, either. These days, I think the inclusion of Wifi is a lot more useful and valuable. I'd much rather have that than an electronic level. Wifi connectivity opens up a lot of great possibilities.

0 upvotes

I have it in my NX20, and hardly ever use it... in fact, I don't think I use it... it's more of a distraction when on screen than it is of use to me. so I don't think it's a big deal. of course, I think their other models have it if it's really needed (plus you get other goodies too for the price difference).

1 upvote

I have an electronic level in my E-P3 and use it constantly.

1 upvote

I use it all the time on my xe1

0 upvotes

In an America of clinical obesity the cameras get smaller and smaller. I have medium to smaller hands and I can't pick up one of these without wondering where my fingers go. What does a fat man or a man with large hands do? At 180#, 2 or 3 lbs of camera is just not a problem. I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography. Particularly ironic direction for camera makers since the phones get bigger and bigger.

1 upvote

I would prefer this camera to be smaller still. Make it as small as possible. If you want big get the X pro 1, that is ginormous.

3 upvotes

DenWil: there's plenty of "big cameras" for you.... not everyone is "fat: or overweight... humans come in many sizes..

4 upvotes

DenWil -- The purpose of downsizing a camera is not to make it more or less hand-holdable. The purpose is to make it easier to carry with accessories in a pocket, purse, or small bag. Your critique totally misses the point.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Just go Medium Format.

There, I fixed it.

3 upvotes

"I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography."

Sickly? Or just healthy and fit?

If your hands are too fat to hold such a camera, I think you have bigger problems to be worried about, hehe.

The reality is that not all of us measure our masculinity by the size of our camera. I use heavy FF DSLR gear for work, and have logged countless hours lugging around such gear. But it doesn't mean I want to do so in my off time. My attitude these days is that I only carry around my big gear when I'm *paid* to. Otherwise, for personal, casual shooting, I use compact, smaller, lighter mirrorless gear. And my fingers know exactly where to go. We're not oafish mountain apes, for crying out loud. (At least some of us aren't. LOL)

3 upvotes

well said T3! +++
I can't believe that people are knocking this for size when they have the oversized-for-mirrorless xe1 and xpro1 to choose from!
I'm 6ft2 and 195# and not fat at all, don't have girly hands and don't feel less of a man just because I LOVE mirrorless cameras, especially the more reasonably sized ones like this one.

1 upvote

Denwil is just pulling a fast one. He uses a Pentax 67 for his photography.

If he is that fat, he wouldn't be able to work as a scout.

0 upvotes

DSLR, Medium Format, Large Format. You have plenty of options.

0 upvotes

DPR why are you giving almost every half-decent camera a gold star now? Literally a large a majority of $600+ cameras now are getting gold stars, it completely dilutes the rating system and makes it look like you are just using it as a marketing ploy to sell cameras at Gear Shop. Can't you come up with a system where only a few cameras at most each year get the top award? Then we would actually know which you really think are best, because right now it looks like you're just trying to satisfy everybody and as a result satisfying nobody.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

All that glitters...

Then there's the Previews that never seem to make it to completion...

3 upvotes

Think of it as a frequent flyer program. When you're in an airport and they call the diamond, platinum, gold, silver and bronze members. Each of these people thinks they are special but there's no one left in the boarding area.

2 upvotes

Just my 2c, but I think these days every half-decent camera just _are_ technical masterpieces, and thus it may be hard not to give a gold award. Well I'm just expressing this from my modest photography-gadgetry needs ;-) Anyhow, yet I see the point where gold awards tend to be given away easily and looses its exclusivity. Having said that, maybe the introduction of some "Platinum Award" might be an idea which would strictly be reserved to anything which would be "outstanding"?

4 upvotes

Shurato, your point is well taken, but I think that the improved quality of cameras is and should be reflected in their percentage scores. The award system should serve to distinguish the top few cameras of the year, and the standards by which they are judged should increase as the competition improves. Right now the award system tells us nothing because so many cameras are gold. They should either give out fewer golds or add in a new level like platinum or diamond.

1 upvote

The problem with reserving Gold rating for only a few cameras is: The great cameras are not all released at the same time.

What happens when they hold-off giving out one of the few remaining Gold ratings, just in case they need one later in the year - when some great camera MAY be released?

Or, do they just give them out as the cameras arrive on the market, and "too bad" to the great cameras which debut after all the year's allotment of Gold ratings have already been handed-out?

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting

1 upvote

I'm not advocating for a quota, just a higher standard of what should be gold. It could be that five or six cameras in a year deserve a gold award, but it also could be that none deserve one. There have been three cameras announced this year that have received gold awards and I don't think any of them deserved it.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

An additional perspective is that, perhaps, there is truly no single camera that is better for everyone. Perhaps many of the cameras are equally good, but have different strengths and different weaknesses. What is "gold" for one user might not be "gold" for another.

1 upvote

They also hit the GearShop before they hit the street and we get some accumulated user experience. Remember, orbs.

1 upvote

I think it really depends on the camera's label.
If it says "Samsung" it gets criticized... if it's among the ones they prefer (the ones they have lying around in the office - see size comparison photos above) then it'll get a favourable review.

1 upvote

What about a nice price of mahogany as an award, after all they're using it on handgrips of luxury cameras - mahogany the new platinum! :)

0 upvotes

@mapgraphs: just my thoughts, I will try again, DPR,where's the eos m review? Please, any kind of answer! Thank you.

0 upvotes

"Areas of fine green detail can be 'mushy'"

Have our intrepid reviewers yet determined if this is an issue with the X-Trans design, or if it is merely software?

0 upvotes

Most likely software. I've seen stunning landscape work from X-trans, but the right raw software conversion seems to be important. I hear Iridient (or something to that effect) is a good choice. Somebody also mentioned that new newest versions of Silkypix that comes with the camera does the job very well too. The sensor itself is excellent.

8 upvotes

Nope. It's the sensor. Even JPEGs have mushy greenery.

0 upvotes

Software - conversions with Irident and Aperture are sharper than results for any other APS-C camera. LR no longer has "mush" either in most circumstances, but is a bit soft for my my preferences (but many use it successfully with NIK tools etc).

3 upvotes

It's the software. Adobe makes mush out of foliage.

Iridient and Aperture pull all sorts of detail out.

Even the OOC Jpegs can be decent if you turn NR to -2, and Sharpening to +2.

1 upvote

I am looking for an excellent APS-C size mirrorless camera which can out perform a micro 4/3 camera in overall usage. The numerous succession of NEX has not been successful due to its poor lens collection and its "unfriendly" photographer user interface / Menu system. The Fuji X series could offer some hopes. However, it too falls short of expectation in many areas, many of which were pointed out in the reviews.

I like the size of the X-M1 but the slow AF speed and many other compromises cause me to hesitate buying this camera despite it getting a gold award.

Some has attributed the other problems to the X-trans sensor which I wouldn't disagree.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The aF speed of the xm1 is not by any means slow. Just not the fastest. The xm1 is reasonably zippy.

5 upvotes

Samsung NX.

2 upvotes

@ Raist3d

I like the male portrait you have taken on June 6 and the first night shot you have taken on August 7 in your blog.

What camera and lens did you use for the night shot?

0 upvotes

lens tests show that the sony lenses aren't THAT bad - but the Fuji lenses before these two new ones are very above average.
I think this camera may do better in performance tests with the faster LM lenses that Fuji makes - let's compare apples with apples here - if the 2 new cheap lenses slow it down, they'll slow down it's big brothers as well.
I'd be curious to see how much of this is due to the lens - with smaller apertures and slower motors.

0 upvotes

I think you are being too anal retentive here. Just buy one and enjoy using it.

1 upvote

I agree with photobeans.

You're not going to get an noticeable increase in image quality by moving from a Micro Four Thirds to an APS-C sensor. You really need to go to full frame for that.

If you're not willing to go full-frame then just buy a Micro Four Thirds or NEX camera and be done with it.

If you have specific lens requirements then you're probably better off with Micro Four Thirds. Otherwise, NEX is also very good.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

@NZ Scott - While i agree with "buy one and enjoy" I don't agree with Scott that the jump in image quality is so trivial as to "you must go to FF to notice a difference." Sorry, but there's a noticeable difference depending on what kind of work you are doing between a Fuji Xtrans and m43/rds. But I totally agree with you that at this point, all these cameras are fantastic and pick the one that satisfies your needs and wants.

0 upvotes

@White Shadow - the camera for those two shots is the same- the Fuji X-E1. For the portrait of the man, it was the Fuji XF35 F1.4 prime, and for the man at night it was the new Fuji XF27 F2.8 pancake lens.

0 upvotes

Pity they don't have a small compact pancake that can go head to head with the 30mm f2 on Samsung's NX300... I guess their primary concern was for the xm1's 27mm f2.8 to not cannibalize sales of their x100s model.

4 upvotes

Actually the 27mm is excellent for what it was designed for, shooting street.

3 upvotes

Actually no. I find the XF27mm F2.8 fantastic, and it's not the "XM's 27" but a lens for the entire line up. It's XF class so it's well built, high quality.

1 upvote

Hm. I looked through the samples and thought, "The Fujifilm is getting it's butt handed to it by the likes of the Olympus E-M1 and Canon 100D" - and then I read the article's conclusion.... there's a disconnect between what I see in the comparometer and what their conclusions are.

I suppose it could be the lens - I've been fooled before by a fantastic lens on a so-so camera here at DPR - but it looks more like over-agressive noise reduction to me. The green feathers are a blur at any ISO.....

I also recognize that ultimate sharpness and detail is not everything; it's something that I crave, but others might prefer the warm almost "creamy" smoothness of the Fuji's output - with the right subject and at the right enlargement it would be quite nice.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

A lot of it is that X-Trans requires different sharpening algorithms. The detail is there, but at default sharpening, appears soft. Adjusting up reveals tremendous amounts of detail, easily as good and in many cases a little better than my E-M5. DPR however, normalizes sharpening for all cameras. While good in theory, when comparing a Bayer sensor vs an X-Trans, it doesn't work well.

8 upvotes

pssst... the Oly EM1 is almost 2.5x as expensive without a lens.

0 upvotes

E-M1 is a different class of camera and priced accordingly.

The Fuji X-M1 is more akin to the E-PL5 from Olympus.

5 upvotes

I agree with ecm, and don't see the answer as reasonable. Yes, in some perfect universe, playing even keeps things even. But the eyes show this isn't happening. The Fuji images are simply soft. If some "adjustment" is being made between these results and the final glowing gold medal praises at the end, then those need to be visible here somehow--perhaps with some more optimally corrected (sharpened) examples side by side? As is it chips away at the overall credibility of the testing, which is part of dpreview's foundation.

5 upvotes

You guys gotta take a step back, scrape your nose of the monitor and look at the actual images. These are some of the most pleasantly rendered images i have seen straight out of camera from any ILC or SLR.

And forget about that damned studio comparison tool.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

If they used Aperture for this comparison the results would simply be different http://sgoldswoblog.com/2013/04/21/x-trans-raw-conversion-comparisons/

0 upvotes

The X-Trans sensor doesn't respond well to the general sharpening settings of their tests. It has a different CFA layout, and thus requires slightly different demosaicing and sharpening. So, unfortunately for Fuji, it doesn't do well in standardized tests that have been put together for Bayer sensors.

0 upvotes

Definite improvement in color saturation and contrast compared to X-E1/Pro1, but still this camera exhibits the same trans-problems: colors are off (red is bloody, green is poisonous, blue is cyan), rendering is plastic, the artifacts and smearing. I think Fuji will soon drop trans sensors, they are behind every Bayer sensor in that price range.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

Given the fact that many renowned professionals came to the opposite conclusion, and DPR awarding the IQ and features with the highest award, I'd say this is merely your opinion and not a fact.

25 upvotes

Yes I agree I can't understand what the dpreview staff is smoking, the output is absolutely horrible.

1 upvote

Ludicrous comment - if Fuji dropped x-trans now I would sell my cameras tomorrow. The output is outstanding to my eyes. Perhaps you are in the minority here?

1 upvote

It's kinda hard not to jus laugh at this point at such ignorant comments. Here's a colorful high-DR snap:

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/tuneup.jpg

0 upvotes

So the OOC JPEG of the X-M1 is very similar to X-E1 level but still slightly less, ... & the RAW of the X-M1 is clearly not up to X-E1 level.
In other words slightly better than X100s in OOC JPEG & Raw, but not yet up to X-E1's overall image quality level, although very close... I wonder how much improvement in image quality the X-E2 & X-Pro2 will come with in the near future to differentiate from the more mass market X-M1...??

Despite X-M1's competitive image quality, I am not sure how this will ever be a serious camera without a viewfinder?

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

could you please direct me to where you see that the IQ is different - where you see identical test shots for the XM1 vs XE1? as far as I know, they had a different test scene when they evaluated the xe1.

6 upvotes

The iq is virtually identical. I am not sure where you are getting its different

As for "serious camera" that's all relative. Get the xe1 then

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

Actually it does have a new processor, and the jpg processing changed (a little) along with it. The 'intelligence' of the camera also improved and indeed the word is that it handles the real world very well. People really gotta get a break from test scenes.

0 upvotes

The IQ of this Camera is nice, but I dont see the revolutionary element here. Even at ISO 3200 it certainly looks cleaner than the EPL5, but also has a feeling of lacking detail... We can always use NR and lose detail, but if the RAWs from this camera already have the NR look then any of the competitors can simply apply it. However if you want to leave the sense of detail in a higher ISO show one can always apply selective NR, but the Fuji it always has that look.... Well that is how I feel about the output.

0 upvotes

That's because they keep using adobe raw converters which are know to currently not give you the max potential resolution I xtrans. Check capture one 7 or iridient. Actually even the latest update to fujis silky pix works better

6 upvotes

Maybe, maybe not. If the IQ is so severely impacted by ACR, why dont they use the appropriate software and show the potential of the product :)

Having said that, splitting staws really.

0 upvotes

DPR uses the default Adobe RAW settings to compare "apples to apples" for the RAW files. Unfortunately, this only works for cameras with the same color filter array. Due to the different CFA and the soft default settings Adobe uses for the X-trans, this comparison is not "apples to apples". DPR should correct to soft Adobe default sharpening for the X-trans such that the files can be more readily compared.

3 upvotes

@alatchin- no, there is no maybe maybe not here. This has been more than researched by now. The evidence is out there if you go ahead and look a it. Better yet- do it for yourself. Download some raws and convert the files yourself. Capture one has a 60 day trial. Iridient has an eternal trial (watermarks). You can download Fuji's raw converter for free.

By all means do not believe me but walk with your experience or remain ignorant- your choice :-)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Replies are correct. Adobe is a bit weak with X-Trans files. Great for street shooting (low noise, good edge detail for high contrast scenes), but no good for landscapes or anything with high amounts of small details.

Iridient, Aperture, Capture One, etc all do a better job of detail extraction.

DPR won't use specific RAW converters for tests, because that'd ruin the standardization process that works so well for 99% of cameras out there.

It would be nice, however, if in their image quality section they made note of Adobe's weaknesses and provided a quick comparison of details between Adobe and another high quality processor.

1 upvote

If i see it right, it does not have a touchscreen monitor? I think you should mention that in the text right next to the monitor image.

A touchscreen monitor is such an advantage for shooting, reviewing and changing settings that i don't want to miss it anymore.

2 upvotes

Missing EVF is an issue. Same for the XA-1.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

For me too, and also an OVF... that's why I've an x-pro1!

5 upvotes

+1. The missing EVF is a bummer.

0 upvotes

Seriously ... People would complaint about a tricycle missing its fourth wheel.

When did the X-E1 become invisible ?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

26 upvotes

If only there was some way to get an X-trans sensor with an EVF. Fuji should really address that gap in the market. In fact they might benefit from trying to invent some sort of hybrid OVF/EVF. I wonder if there could be a market for such a thing? It might even be worth them considering introducing such a thing for both fixed and changeable lens cameras. If I were them I might be tempted to go for something like a 35mm equivalent for the fixed lens version. What do other people think?

26 upvotes

@day2012: hahahahaha
thank you for sharing - it is much needed for some folks on this site ;-)

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

7 upvotes

We need a compact APS-C roundup. Fuji X series, Leica X series, EOS-M, Sigma DPM series, Ricoh GR, Coolpix A.

1 upvote

good idea - add the other two, to the one they already did of x100s - ricoh gr - nikon a

0 upvotes

The problem is that those don't work as a side-by-side:

Someone who likes the 35mm equivalent view offered by the Leica and Fujifilm are unlikely to consider a 28mm equiv. camera to be a sensible alternative (even if you us the Ricoh's 35mm equiv crop mode).

So you end up with an X100S vs Leica X2 comparison and a Ricoh vs Nikon vs Sigma piece, which we tried to do, only to find the Sigma wasn't particularly comparable.

2 upvotes

Richard, why dpreview staff felt the sigma dp1m was not particularly comparable being the same focal length? (I the ones you mentioned to compare with). Honest question.

0 upvotes

@Raist3d

I suspect because the sensor still limits photographers to static well lit scenes. It's a rather niche product. It does landscapes *incredibly well*, but it doesn't hold up past ISO 400, to standard bayer sensors.

I really want to get a Sigma DPM camera at some point specifically for landscapes, but with the understanding that's all I'd be using it for.

0 upvotes

Add on OVF and combo with pancake and fish eye this could be pretty sweet.

3 upvotes

you mean you want a x-pro1

8 upvotes

I like the one handed operation functionality and the ability to keep things small ish. Removable OVF with the pancake can keep things small and not attract too much attention for street photography that is my fave. I am in love with the X100s but like a smaller and less "Look at me" camera.

1 upvote

Nice camera, but... Olympus PEN camera on comparison looks better, and it is much quicker too. Plus much more lenses, definitely it is better choice, at least for my opinion.

0 upvotes

Yea, but a tiny sensor....

9 upvotes

that is why it is good to have both. Olympus m43 for serious shooting, and Fuji for those times when you can just take your time....

2 upvotes

Thank u dpreview for acknowledging the mushy green issue. I think xtrans is best for portraits and especially portraits in low light. If u shoot landscapes with lots of greenery in mid and background, get xa1 instead

2 upvotes

The "mushy green issue" is a non issue with the proper raw concerter. In fact, due to extra green photo sensors the fuji will give you even more color detail with greenery.

9 upvotes

It'd be nice if DPReview dropped their test scene and a landscape or two through Iridient, to show how much detail is possible with the sensor when using the right processor.

1 upvote

just curious why are fuji cameras look so similar to Leica?

0 upvotes

The Japanese copied so much the Leica in the '50s that henceforth all camera designers in Japan have been born with a gene stamped "Leica" in their DNA chains.

2 upvotes

Because when you put things where they belong you end up with something that looks like a 35mm rangefinder camera.

5 upvotes

Fuji always tries something weird to get noticed among the completion but it never works.

1 upvote

It is a traditional lay-out for people who like traditional controls.
And if you take away the pentaprism because not needed, what you are left is a rangefinderish shape.

2 upvotes

Gold award for a camera with slow focus that takes close to 1 sec to focus and then a seond delay until next shoot. But maybee I'm missing something...?

11 upvotes

you missed the part of "big photo quality in a small package"

22 upvotes

Which can't focus very quickly, especially in low light.

I always find a cameras ability to focus quickly high on my list of 'wants' (my pets and nieces and nephews don't do 'still')

If its not than, yes, this looks like a great little camera.

Keep them coming :)

1 upvote

Don´t know where you get your numbers from. The review says "In good lighting, the bundled 16-50mm lens locked focus in 0.3 secs at wide-angle and 0.6 secs at telephoto."

7 upvotes

Definitely did not find focus times to be anywhere near as bad as you describe.

18 upvotes

Guys I am extremely sure AmatuerSnaps has done extensive testing with this camera before making his comments.

8 upvotes

Ever heard of manual focus lens? If you don't think before you shot, I guess AF speed is very important. Don't forget to troll Leica BTW.

1 upvote

hehe, brendon is making a joke.

0 upvotes

If any focus speed difference, how much of that is due to the new "slower" lenses available with this, compared to the other models that had brighter lenses when tested? Might it do as well as the others if it were tested with the same lenses? There is a difference in the motors (LM versus the ones that come with this), and they're not as bright either.

1 upvote

The X-M1 has the fastest AF in interchangable lens X series today.

0 upvotes

The focus speed of the xm1 is not slow. Just not the fastest.

2 upvotes

I know that this camera applies noise reduction to RAW files. Normally I would say that this is a bad thing. However, after looking at the samples I have to say that it looks like the noise reduction is as good as any external program would do.

I can’t find a fault at all with the image quality from this camera. The photos look fantastic. If it had the lens lineup and video features that m4/3s has then I would definitely consider purchasing one.

1 upvote

it's not the quantity of lenses, but the quality... and there are all the other Fuji lenses you can use with this... and with the exception of these two new lenses, all the others are brighter on average than the other brands' offerings at similar price points.

3 upvotes

Just a small correction.... the camera doesn't apply noise reduction to raw files, but the raw processor might. Adobe's demosaicing process seems to cut down on luminance noise. But if you process in something else, like Iridient or Raw Photo Processor, the noise is a bit higher. Though, on the other hand, you end up with significantly more detail.

1 upvote

@ Jeff Keller
where is the Chinatown gate picture?

1 upvote

I'd love to have the SF and Stanford photos in the gallery but it's too long a drive from Seattle!

3 upvotes

I paired the X-M1 to my iPhone and it worked great. What is special about the X-M1 is that at a party, it is the same size as an Olympus E-PM2 or PL5. (With the 27mm pancake or the 18mm.)

That is new. The X-E1 or X100S are larger to show.

Also with a pancake one can use a small OVF. Clever.

Also the flash is tiltable to bounce to the ceiling. Very nice effect.

1 upvote

And when NOT at a party, is it still the same size ?

11 upvotes

speaking about intelligence....

0 upvotes

Also this seems like a much shorter review than usual, I didn't see much about menus etc so wanted to know if any of the buttons on the rear can be configured?

2 upvotes

Actually, is part of this review missing? It keeps referring to 'we'll cover this later' then never does, such as when talking about the fn button. For example what does the AF button do? Does it AF? Does it allow setting AF point or does it change AF mode? What does the macro button do? Can it be reconfigured? How is auto-ISO set up in this camera and what parameters can be configured? Can you switch the control dials around so that the the top dial is aperture and the rear shutter?

Sorry but the review just seems to skip over a lot of the 'controls' of thus camera and focuses a lot of the time saying how IQ is identical to other X cams, which is fair enough as it probably is.

1 upvote

The AF button selects the AF point - it doesn't initiate AF. The macro button allows close focusing (which speeds up AF in normal shooting). Auto ISO allows setting of maximum ISO and minimum shutter speed, but the latter only across the same limited range as the X100/X100S. The dials can't be reconfigured - the only customisable control on the X-M1 is the Fn button.

1 upvote

Thanks Andy, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify :) Though I can't help but feel this should (or would normally) be part of a DPR review. So I was wondering, is this a new review format for you guys?

0 upvotes

Yes, the review is shorter, mainly because we're trying to crank these out faster.

7 upvotes

Hi Jeff, thanks for the response! Will happily take more plentiful reviews for a small-ish loss in extreme detail.

0 upvotes

Page 1 says "Built-in Wi-Fi with remote camera control and image transfer to mobile device or PC" but then later says remote control is not possible.

0 upvotes

Thanks for pointing that out, the line in the introduction was wrong. Remote camera control is not available.

0 upvotes

thanks for the very quick review and for this effort . Hope to see something similar to the Pentax k50

0 upvotes

K50 is water resistant though

0 upvotes

sorry I meant a quick review for pentax

0 upvotes

I don't get all the hype about these fuji cameras. The image samples look dull, mushy, without contrast and unsharp when compared to NEX and the 100D either in RAW or JPEG. The ergonomy is ok and the build quality is nice, but this does not compensate for the IQ problem.

6 upvotes

Well, I own a Fuji x-Pro1 and a Sony NEX-5... the quality of the Fuji is definitely superior (most of all at high ISO) and I would say is on par with at least some FF cameras (I compared with a friend's Nikon D600) and with my Canon 1D mark III. Have you ever tried to use one of these Fujis yourself?

13 upvotes

That is probably why dpreview have scored the iq higher than any of the examples you have given. They must be utterly incompetent. Either that or you are.

10 upvotes

I think a lot people put large emphasis on high ISO.

But I agree that at low ISO it does come a bit short compared to most of its peers, due the X-Trans design. A bit softer RAW files (for which you can partially compensate), a bit mushy greens in general due to the different color filters and moiré problems with diagonal lines (see test charts). And even at high ISO, you should substract about half a stop from indicated ISO's compared to most of its peers for the camera being a bit too optimistic in this regard.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

4 upvotes

Quite a few stories are suggesting that the most widespread tools (Adobe, etc.) don't process the RAW files nearly as well as they could. From what I read, Iridient seems to do the best job by far. If dpr is using Adobe, that could be a problem.

3 upvotes

Agreed, I strongly recommend professionals to look at the RAW import. There's quite a difference especially with this new X-Trans technology. Here's a DPReview user who has compared Lightroom 4.4 with Iridient 2.1.1 output, clearly showing the better clarity with Iridient: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51732276?image=3

3 upvotes

The IQ from my x100s is as good as it gets. Where have you seen prints from these cameras? I can make a 40x60 that is sharp all the way to the corners.
Contrast? That comes during processing.

1 upvote

The "IQ problem" got the Gold Award. Odd, isn't it. Or maybe there is no real problem. Ah, choices, choices...

1 upvote

The Fuji "hype" for me is...having the IQ of a Nikon D600 (I've now sold mine) in a small, light weight package. Allowing me to get images from subjects I would not get otherwise, due to the intimidation factor, etc of a larger DLSR / lens combo.
Also, now I have this IQ potential with me every single day. No way I would carry a D600 kit with me at all times. Fuji makes this a joy.

I understand why dpreview needs to use standardized tests, yet unfortunately, this results in veiling the IQ potential of the x trans sensor. Iridient Developer, C1P7 or the free supplied SilkyPix do not suffer from "mushy" greens and certainly not any lack of detail resolution.

Is the Fuji perfect? Of course not, nor is my D800 or Mamiya RZ67 ProII with a Leaf Aptus 33MP digital back.

My Fuji XP1 (with the incredible 14mm, 23mm soon, 35mm, 60mm lenses) is my favorite photographic tool. Period.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Like every other camera, there's pros and cons. One system might fit your needs, while another doesn't. Yet both systems could very well be high quality.

0 upvotes

I'm not knocking the Fuji high ISO IQ, but it's clearly doing NR even on RAW. They have not overcome the laws of physics and have not discovered miracle low noise sensor and associated electronics.

0 upvotes

It takes photo's as good as the x-pro1 so the gold award is deserved.

8 upvotes

Total comments: 192

Editorial content

Product database

Community