Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X-T1 Review

April 2014 | By Andy Westlake, Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,299.007 deals


Based on a production Fujifilm X-T1 with Firmware 1.0

After starting at the top-end with its X-Pro1, Fujifilm has been steadily expanding its X-series mirrorless camera to appeal to a broader audience. With its X-T1, Fujifilm has moved back towards the high-end, offering a fully-loaded mirrorless camera in a weather-resistant, SLR-style body. There's plenty more where that came from - the X-T1 has one of the largest EVFs we've ever seen, numerous manual control dials and, for the first time on an X-series camera, an optional battery grip.

The 'guts' of the X-T1 are very much like those found on the recent X-E2. This includes the 16 megapixel X-Trans CMOS II sensor (with on-chip phase detection), EXR Processor II, built-in Wi-Fi, and full HD video recording. The main differences between the X-T1 and X-E2 are the LCD (tilting vs fixed) and EVF (in terms of magnification), the maximum burst rate (8 vs 7 fps, now with focus tracking at full speed), a flash sync port and, of course, the design. But more on that later.

Fujifilm X-T1 key features

  • 16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor
  • EXR Processor II
  • Weather-resistant body
  • ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)
  • 2.36M dot OLED electronic viewfinder with 0.77x (equiv.) magnification
  • 'Dual view' in EVF shows regular view and focus peaking/digital split image at the same time
  • Top-plate ISO, shutter speed, exposure compensation, drive mode and metering controls
  • Six programmable function buttons
  • 3.0" 1.04M dot 3:2 tilting LCD
  • 8 fps continuous shooting with continuous AF (3 fps with live view)
  • Built-in Wi-Fi including remote control from a smartphone or tablet
  • Full HD movie recording (1080/60p, 36Mbps bitrate), with built-in stereo microphone
  • Clip-on external flash (included)
  • Optional battery grip

As you can see, that's quite a spec sheet. The highlight on the X-T1 is undoubtedly its huge electronic viewfinder, which is even slightly larger than the optical viewfinder on the Canon EOS-1D X. Combine that with its excellent resolution and it's truly a pleasure to use. The large EVF also allows for some neat tricks, such as 'Dual View', which shows the full scene plus a magnified view in a smaller window to one side, with focus peaking or digital split image for manual focusing. The EVF also has a portrait orientation view, which keeps the camera settings at the top and bottom of the image when the camera is rotated 90 degrees.

Another feature of note is the camera's weather-resistant body. Using more than 75 seals, the X-T1 is dust and water-resistant, and freezeproof to -10°C/+14°F. The X-T1 is also chock full of dials on its top plate, allowing for easy adjustments to ISO, shutter speed, and exposure compensation. Under two of those dials are switches for drive mode and metering.

Fuji has made some big claims about performance, saying that the X-T1 has the 'world's fastest AF of 0.08 seconds'. Whether that's true or not, the X-T1 is certainly an impressive improvement over early X-series cameras, which haven't been as competitive in the autofocus arena as their peers. The X-T1 can also shoot at 8 fps with subject tracking - the best of any X-series model - and it's also the first camera to support ultra-fast UHS-II SD cards.

One thing that the X-T1 doesn't have is a built-in flash. Instead, Fuji has bundled a small external flash, which has a guide number of 8 meters at ISO 100. The camera offers a flash sync port, in addition to its hot shoe, for attaching studio strobes.

The most direct competitor to the X-T1 is certainly the Olympus OM-D E-M1. The X-T1 has a larger APS-C sensor, but lacks the E-M1's in-body image stabilisation that works with all lenses. Aside from this they're very similar, both in terms of design and features. But given its pricing and feature set, we suspect Fujifilm also has the Canon EOS 70D and Nikon D7100 in its sights.

Kit options, lenses, and accessories

The X-T1 is priced at $1299 / £1049.99 / €1199 body only, or $1699 / £1399.99 / €1599 with the 18-55mm F2.8-4.0 lens (which is not water-resistant). It is available in black only (sorry, silver fans).

When Fujifilm released an updated lens road map at CES 2014, it kept something secret: that several of the lenses on it will be weather-resistant to match the X-T1. The lenses in question are the XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R OIS WR, XF 16-55mm F2.8 R OIS WR, and XF 50-140mm F2.8 R OIS WR. The bad news is that these lenses won't be available until the middle of this year.

The X-T1 with battery grip and XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 lens
VG-XT1 battery grip MHG-XT hand grip

One accessory that you won't find on any other Fujifilm X-series camera is a battery grip. The VG-XT1 holds an additional WP-N126 battery, allowing for 700 shots in total (CIPA standard). Naturally, this grip also comes with additional buttons for holding the camera vertically. But given the camera's reliance on its top-plate dials, this ends up limited to the shutter button (with encircling lock switch), plus AE-L, AF-L, and Focus Assist buttons.

If you just want to make the standard grip a bit larger, Fuji also offers the MGH-XT hand grip. Like the recently-released updated grips for the X-Pro1 and X-E series cameras, this has a cut-out to allow easy access to the battery compartment, and incorporates an Arca Swiss-type quick release fitting for tripod use. We think this will offer better handling if you shoot the X-T1 with larger zooms.


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.

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
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm X-T1

Comments

Total comments: 439
123
Class A
By Class A (9 hours ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (8 hours ago)

You can spin things many different ways.

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

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

2 upvotes
tlinn
By tlinn (6 hours ago)

K3 fan by chance?

0 upvotes
mamiller
By mamiller (13 hours ago)

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

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (12 hours ago)

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

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

1 upvote
mamiller
By mamiller (12 hours ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (12 hours ago)

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

2 upvotes
mamiller
By mamiller (9 hours ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (2 hours ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (13 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (13 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (16 hours ago)

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

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (12 hours ago)

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (2 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator
By SelfMotivator (18 hours ago)

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

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

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

0 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (12 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (9 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (18 hours ago)

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

6 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (17 hours ago)

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

2 upvotes
Fri13
By Fri13 (17 hours ago)

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

2 upvotes
Clint009
By Clint009 (16 hours ago)

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
HeyItsJoel
By HeyItsJoel (18 hours ago)

Question about Fuji lenses:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
akhyar
By akhyar (18 hours ago)

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

1 upvote
the-dude-75
By the-dude-75 (17 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
edwy
By edwy (20 hours ago)

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

2 upvotes
Iznogoud
By Iznogoud (19 hours ago)

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

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MJJSevilla
By MJJSevilla (18 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (18 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
PatMann
By PatMann (13 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
RikPiks
By RikPiks (21 hours ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
sdgreen
By sdgreen (20 hours ago)

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

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

Seems a very short sighted design by Fuji & Panasonic

1 upvote
Fri13
By Fri13 (18 hours ago)

OM-D E-M1 has:

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
berbmit
By berbmit (1 day ago)

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

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

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

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

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

4 upvotes
maxola67
By maxola67 (1 day ago)

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

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (1 day ago)

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

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

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

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

5 upvotes
Sebastien Guyader
By Sebastien Guyader (22 hours ago)

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

2 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (21 hours ago)

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

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
1 upvote
berbmit
By berbmit (19 hours ago)

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

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

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

1 upvote
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (19 hours ago)

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

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

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

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

Hard to top I would say.

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (13 hours ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (1 day ago)

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

2 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (18 hours ago)

Or Fujica ST.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (1 day ago)

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

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

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

7 upvotes
A7matt
By A7matt (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
ethwit
By ethwit (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
darngooddesign
By darngooddesign (18 hours ago)

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

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (15 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (1 day ago)

Not impressed with any new camera offering.

3 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (1 day ago)

My dear, dear Canon colors...

0 upvotes
bawbaw
By bawbaw (1 day ago)

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

2 upvotes
tripodfan
By tripodfan (1 day ago)

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

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (15 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
sensai
By sensai (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (15 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (1 day ago)

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

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

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

15 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (1 day ago)

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

5 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (1 day ago)

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

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

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

1 upvote
crashpc
By crashpc (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
jimkahnw
By jimkahnw (16 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (13 hours ago)

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (13 hours ago)

Sniff sniff, I smell some astroturfing.

0 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (12 hours ago)

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

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (10 hours ago)

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (4 hours ago)

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

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

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (1 hour ago)

Thanks for looking at it.

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
corbus
By corbus (1 day ago)

DPR - generally I like your reviews.

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

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

What's the reason behind that unlogic decision?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
Matz03
By Matz03 (1 day ago)

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

3 upvotes
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (23 hours ago)

In the future we can do it using software.

0 upvotes
MV Atlanta
By MV Atlanta (1 day ago)

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
Josh Bailey
By Josh Bailey (19 hours ago)

no difference or 10% difference. Which is it?

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (19 hours ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
HeyItsJoel
By HeyItsJoel (1 day ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (1 day ago)

The grass is always yellow-greener, Joe.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SimonWilder
By SimonWilder (1 day ago)

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

3 upvotes
Erik Pavirik
By Erik Pavirik (1 day ago)

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

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

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

edit: Here's one with highlights

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
dmstraton
By dmstraton (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
areichow
By areichow (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
helltormentor
By helltormentor (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
afm
By afm (1 day ago)

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

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

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

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (1 day ago)

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

4 upvotes
57even
By 57even (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
HFLM
By HFLM (1 day ago)

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

4 upvotes
Erik Pavirik
By Erik Pavirik (1 day ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 day ago)

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

2 upvotes
sound1992
By sound1992 (3 hours ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (1 day ago)

Great review, really enjoyed that, thanks!

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

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

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

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 day ago)

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

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

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

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

3 upvotes
Rod McD
By Rod McD (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
Ben Stonewall
By Ben Stonewall (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
gekka
By gekka (1 day ago)

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

0 upvotes
Peter62
By Peter62 (1 day ago)

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

3 upvotes
electrophoto
By electrophoto (1 day ago)

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

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

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (1 day ago)

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

2 upvotes
kaxi85
By kaxi85 (1 day ago)

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

1 upvote
Ijuf Nonac
By Ijuf Nonac (1 day ago)

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

5 upvotes
Stephan Def
By Stephan Def (1 day ago)

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

2 upvotes
iggy888
By iggy888 (2 days ago)

Hi everyone. This is my new top-of-the-list wish-to-have dream camera... with 18-55 f/2.8-4 lens. In Conclusion section, a great list of Pros and a "great" list of Cons (minor complaints, really). :thumbup:

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (2 days ago)

An 84% and gold, a lot of Fuji haters are not going to sleep well tonight. I own the X-T1, it is a fine camera with good manors the creates fine images. What more can you want? All cameras have limites and strengths. The X-T1 is well balanced in it MP, noise and size. It has an excellent lens made for it. I the thing I love the most, the movies aren't very good. I feel as if it has receive a fair review, other sights have given even a little more.
None of the camera draw backs are major. It may well be the best mirror less over all on the market.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
crashpc
By crashpc (2 days ago)

I´m not fuji hater, but I still (also) don´t understand that rating, and mostly IQ rating. There is great poo visible in some parts of test shots, which even half price cameras don´t have, and they called it excellent. Not impressed with this kind of review. For example left down diagonal lines bar. Very bad artifacts/moire. Somewhere else resolution, or noise reduction not just "on par" with other cams. I´d like to have perfect mirrorless instead of DSLR. I really would like to get rid of the mirror, but I don´t see any device good enaugh to convert me. Hope they will come soon with some, for acceptable price. This now is just bad joke (of course only my opinion and my photographic intentions, not for everybody...).

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (1 day ago)

It is not a good day for the fuji haters. When you look at the whole package, IT IS the best mirrorless on the market today. Better IQ than M43 and superior lens selection vs Sony. And did I mention the awesome body design?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Steve_
By Steve_ (1 day ago)

@AlexRuiz

Even though I have a substantial investment in m43 gear I would sell it off and go Fuji if the IQ was really better. It's different, but to my eye no better on the whole.

I also could not live with that lock on the ISO dial. Finally somebody figures out ISO is important enough to have its own dial but they cripple it with the implementation. Only Pentax gets ISO control right - direct assignment to control dial just like (gasp!) aperture and shutter speed. Everyone else is afflicted by film-think to one degree or another.

3 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 day ago)

@AlexRuiz
I think the EM1 has the edge when it comes to controls and body design. Much easier to hold and controllable with one hand (two dials for shutter and aperture + ISO and white balance if a switch is released, very nice idea), larger buttons which are less recessed, touch lcd. I saw so many XT1s with extra grip attached which makes me wonder why on earth they didn't make it larger then?
Larger sensor equates for better ISO performance, but for medium print size the difference is not that huge (even compared to my FF you mostly don't see the difference).
If I were to only have one system, it probably would be the Fuji. Now m43 and FF work great together.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
dmstraton
By dmstraton (1 day ago)

The ISO button isn't crippled. Yes it has a lock. To me, this is no different than holding down a modal button on my Canon and flipping a wheel. In fact, it's easier. And I change ISO much less than aperture and shutter speed, which is a cinch on this on this camera.

LR sucks for Fuji. It's too bad that dpreview uses it but I get the logic. You want insane pixel level detail? Try out a Fuji 23mm and PhotoNinja or Iridient. There is no watercolor or green mush with those converters.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (2 days ago)

I will keep the X-T1, don't get me wrong, but there is something a bit, "meh" about it for me. The X-Pro1 was more fun to shoot with. The fact the official case needs to be remove in order to get the SD card out is bizarre too (I wouldn't have mentioned that had it not been bundled with the camera).

In some ways maybe this is a backhanded compliment. I feel the same about the E-M1 vs the E-M5.

2 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (1 day ago)

I think some cameras have 'character' and their imperfections and foibles add to that.
Though I love the improvements that Oly made to the E-M1 I still get more of a buzz when I pick up the E-M5

0 upvotes
Gaggle
By Gaggle (2 days ago)

Anyone notice that the red paint tube, lower right, under low-light studio test scene, looks NOTHING like red? (do I smell a burned-orange?)
I don't think I saw this huge color error mentioned anywhere in the review.

1 upvote
Peter62
By Peter62 (2 days ago)

Quote: " The camera's DR modes also help you make the most of the sensor's impressive dynamic range."

The X-T1's dynamic range is FAR from being impressive! In fact, DR is VERY poor, compared to Nikon D7100 or almost any other comparable camera!

11 upvotes
laughingor
By laughingor (2 days ago)

Quote: "The X-T1's dynamic range is FAR from being impressive! In fact, DR is VERY poor"

Really? DR is VERY poor? i think you mean "very very" poor. and do you hurt?

1 upvote
dlbeck
By dlbeck (2 days ago)

The review says the Flash Guide is 8 m at iso 100 in the (Specs section); strangely, DP also says it is 8 m at iso 200 in the Introduction section. Fuji's website says the flash Guide is indeed 8 m at iso 100 (as in Specs page), but the Guide is 11 m at iso 200 (which is the default). So, the review is wrong on the "Intro" page and correct, yet incomplete, on the "Specs" page. Probably just a typo, but this is a wonderful little flash, so give it its due. I keep it on my camera all the time because it is so small, yet powerful.

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

What F-stop was the continuous auto-focus tracking test done under?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (2 days ago)

They were shot in shutter priority at 1/500sec and ISO 200, using the 55-200mm zoom at 55mm. This resulted in an aperture of F5.6.

Early in the sequence, the camera doesn't have to refocus very much between shots, if at all, But if you look at the later frames in the sequence, you can see pretty easily how the camera is refocusing between shots, even in the very reduced size of the rollover. Look at how the background becomes progressively more blurred as the camera focuses the lens closer.

2 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (2 days ago)

Fuji High ISO has very less noise but the raw files are not that sharp.......its a bit soft.......

8 upvotes
badi
By badi (2 days ago)

I see a lot of people thinking about "i would love fuji to move to full frame too"...

Actually, first, i think it will not going to happen (at least not any time soon) not for fuji, not for olympus/panasonic. They developed great systems of lenses for this format especially to compensate for the small sensor.
And second i would prefer not to, because this way they will conentrate on quality rather than splitting the features between the FF and APSC semi-systems.

For example the fuji's 23/1.4 35/1.4 56/1.2: This set of primes will produce images that compete with any DSLR FF with good lenses, going FF this companies will actually have to provide something better than the equivalent of this primes and that will go for higher price & huge bulk.
Another example here: Canon's 85/1.2 is 2.2x times the price and 2.5x times the weight compared to fuji's 56/1.2.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 days ago)

Most of those people who want Fuji to make a Full Frame camera don't own a Fuji camera themselves already.

They still live by the dream that Full Frame is the future. Given in by the marketing culprit that come out the same mouth, and of the same companies that said the more megapixels a sensor could bare the better.

They forget that FF makes the camera and lenses as heavy as their current DSLR systems. Therewith loosing one of the biggest advantage of the Fuji x-series.

We will just have to wait for the organic sensor that they are currently developing and APS-C will do just fine for years ahead.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
km25
By km25 (2 days ago)

You are soooo right. In mirror less cameras, APS-C works out to be the best over all. Back in 1960's, 35mm was the small spy camera format that took off.....Nikon F days.

1 upvote
laughingor
By laughingor (2 days ago)

One day I talk to the Taxi driver, in his 50+. And he told me that Full Frame is nothing, he feel not big enough. He is playing the old camera with medium format. well, fair enough for his age.
I would personally satisfy with APS-C or m4/3.

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 day ago)

Good quality FF primes often aren't expensive. Consider a Nikon 28mm,50mm, 85mm/1.8g or Sigma 35mm/1.4 (in a larger package when regarding the body, but for me not an issue at all); price/perf. hard to beat. Fuji is nice, but expensive (I paid 1300 Euros for a D610, 390 for the 85mm (one of the best lenses IMO), 150 for the 50mm, far less than for equivalent Fuji lenses). I'm still waiting for appropriate demosaicing in Lightroom (I'm not so fond of Photo Ninja). If they implemented spectral demosaicing of quasi-random CFAs you get similar peak S/N ratios as the best algorithms for Bayer sensors. This way artefacts like foliage smearing and CAs can be reduced (I admire that Fuji has engineers who read scientific papers from time to time. The potential in random CFAs can be fully exploited only when appropriate demosaicing algorithms are used. Done properly, artefacts and noise levels are not smaller than for Bayer sensors, but appear as chrominance noise, i.e. more visually pleasing.)

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (2 days ago)

Wow.....84% in semi pro DSLR group! NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! MIRRORLESS IS FINALLY GETTING THERE!!

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 days ago)

Why do Fuji RAW's at high ISO look like other camera's JPEGs? What I mean is that although their RAW's look clean, they look NR washed, for lack of a better term. The grain is massaged away. If I look at the RAW's and switch on other camera's JPEGs at 1600 or higher, in the studio scenes, I see more commonality.

8 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 day ago)

Demosaicing. Read the articles on demosaicing random CFAs. If not done correct, artefacts include smearing of details. If done correct, details compared to Bayer sensors are similar, but artefacts appear mostly as chrominance noise (less luminance noise). Scientific papers point to the fact, however, that every sensor has its faults and merits. Depending on the CFA you may have lesser problems with CAs, but more so with fine details, so every design is a tradeoff.

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 day ago)

It appears ACR still isn't that good with Fuji sensors, so not really a good comparison...
http://chromasoft.blogspot.it/2013/03/lightroom-44rc-and-capture-one-versus-x.html
(He's talking about Adobe's second attempt, which is still the one they use. He also writes Raw conversion software for a living.)
Better to use SilkyPix Pro6 or CaptureOne it seems.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 day ago)

"Why do Fuji RAW's at high ISO look like other camera's JPEGs?"

1. You can't look at RAWs. You always look at JPEGs. RAW image is just a dump of numbers, as read from sensor.

2. There is a standard, baseline demosaicing algorithm for Bayer sensors. What you see as RAW is actually a JPEG, produced in ACR as close as possible to the baseline demosaicing algorithm.

3. There is NO baseline demosaicing algorithm for X-Trans sensor. The standard (presumably developed by Fuji) demosaicing algorithm includes NR and other bells and whistles within. Thus RAW view for X-Trans is only marginally different from JPEG view.

4. Since there is a baseline demosaicing for Bayer, you can compare the RAWs between different cameras. But they are incomparable to RAWs from X-Trans sensors, since they use different demosaicing, which already includes PP.

0 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (2 days ago)

So many exciting innovations from what some might label lesser stars, yet the two most prominent camps retain the most widespread allegiance.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (2 days ago)

Has a lot to do with cost. Consumers can buy DSLRs with a kit lens for a fraction of the cost of high-end mirrorless, and be thrilled with the results. They represent the bulk of the market outside of cell phone shooters.

4 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (2 days ago)

these low end DSLR are also part of an ecosystem that this fuji can only dream of.

0 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (1 day ago)

It's also harder to change when you're already invested in a system. It's why they use proprietary lens mounts.
Though I agree about the 'ecosystem' for the majority of mainstream photographers they are (or soon will be) catered for adequately by Fuji and even more so by m43

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (2 days ago)

"A high-end camera is nothing without optics to match, and while the X-system is little more than 2 years old, the lens line-up is starting to look distinctly mature."

Personally the lens line up and the price of their lenses are what are steering me toward going with the E-M1. Also does anyone else think the white balance is way off on the E-M1 sample images? I've used the E-M1 and have never seen whites look so yellow.

3 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 days ago)

Using AWB with incandescent sources? There is only so much AWB can do. You'd have to look at the EXIF data.

1 upvote
badi
By badi (2 days ago)

Actually the lens for fuji are kind of great. Really great. Their only problem is the price, however for similar quality you pay the same amount of money also in the 4/3 camp, while fuji benefits from a better DOF control.
In sony and 4/3 mount you can find cheap lenses as well... like those from sigma art, which look cool (specially for sony).

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (2 days ago)

The fuji lenses and the lineup as a whole is terrific. The ones who complain about it the most don't actually know what the total lineup is, and/or don't use the system.

If you want Olympus go Olympus, but it isn't for a lack of lenses in the fuji line.

7 upvotes
wchutt
By wchutt (1 day ago)

The Fujinon prime lenses' performance-to-price ratio is one of the reasonss I decided to abandoned Nikon FX for Fujifilm X.

When my second XT-1 body arrives, my remaining Nikon body and lens will go out the door. I just started to use the Fujinon 10-20/4 and it outperforms my Nikkor 16-35/4 G lens.

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (1 day ago)

Yes the lens line up IS the reason I'd buy the Olympus. What many forget is that you have 2 lines of lenses now that work on the E-M1, and work well I might add. Fuji has nothing in the way of telephoto ( and I love shooting nature) with the E-M1 I not only ave the 75-300 which I'd guess is better with more reach than the Fuji telephoto. I also have the 50-200 SWD weather sealed 4/3 lens. The Zuiko 25 and 45mm are 1/2 the price as the Fuji comp's. 1/3 if you buy used and I'd bet every bit as good. I have looked at the Fuji line, the entire line and it does not have what I would want or for how much I'd like to have to spend.

1 upvote
Steve_
By Steve_ (1 day ago)

@RichRMA
"Using AWB with incandescent sources? There is only so much AWB can do."

You've obviously not used an Olympus. Theirs is the only AWB that really works. And in typical Olympus fashion, it is configurable. You can choose between yellowish cast under incandescent light (like virtually all other cameras) or choose to have the color rendered accurately under all conditions.

This was pointed out in the review, where the E-M1's performance in the latter mode was characterized and very accurate.

1 upvote
vadims
By vadims (2 days ago)

Why there is no ISO range on the specs page (2)?

I even searched for "iso" on the page; the only place where it's mentioned is flash guide number (i.e. that it's for ISO100).

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 days ago)

Native ISO range 200-6400

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (2 days ago)

Sorry, that was a quirk of our specs database. It should be visible now.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 439
123