PIX 2015
Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X-T1 Review

April 2014 | By Andy Westlake and Jeff Keller


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 1998 - 2015 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
1448
I own it
823
I want it
184
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 651
1234
Picasso Noir

Fuji has alway's done excellent from my first purchase of the Fuji dslr Pro s3 s5 how ever after that they stop making dslr keep me in the dark for some years I admit I was very disappointed with fuji..butttttt a few year later they drop a bombshell and professional DSLR photographers has turn head X-100 then after X-Pro1 and Ex-1 with remarkable image quality that's surpass every high-end dslr to this day including overly priced Leica rangefinder . i purchase the X-pro1 the next day. Yes it was a learning curve but quickly I was on top of it, before that i had purchase a brick Canon 5D classic I thought that Fujifilm was out all the dslr game. I wish i could share some of my Fine Art image that was I've taken with that X-Pro1 you would think i shot it with a Hasselblad medium format camera. i know the Secret of this camera inside out-that's why people don't understand this awesome piece of craftsmanship.I tell you what people i'll share a few but its gonna be screen snap shot

2 upvotes
trickiedickie3

Hello,how can I view your photos

2 upvotes
Picasso Noir

I'm not sure friend.
I uploaded it in DPreview like they said for every one to see.
Dose any one knows anything how to view them in DP site?

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Picasso Noir

Hi trickliedickie3 i had to go to my setting and enable the view option,try it now. Let me know if you have any problem viewing them.

1 upvote
pinnacle

To all of those who have doubts about the realities of what the X-T1 can produce in actual image IQ, please find a way to get your hands on one with one of the excellent Fujinon primes. Use a demo version of Photo Ninja to process a RAW file and then pass judgement.

Seriously, this camera has gotten a lot right. The handling, the ergonomics, the image IQ...

I am thinking that the reason so many people are making quick and mistaken negative judgements about what it actually can do quite well is because the camera is a game changer and has a lot of owners of expensive DSLRs thinking long and hard about whether or not it is time to consider buying an X-T1.

Do your own field test and process the images using Photo Ninja. Many of you will be pleasantly surprised and many of you will not be surprised because you have already seen how well Fujifilm has done previously.

7 upvotes
jadot

That's probably true. I personally switched from Nikon to Fuji a while ago, and though the X-T1 has it's flaws, the rewards are great.

However, at a pixel level there are problems with some RAW converters. Photo Ninja is good, but not significantly better than any other, and the software and workflow itself is so awful that it isn't worth the effort. The same goes for SilkyPix
So;
Lightroom: useable but not great with noise/sharpening/detail. Your "watercolour effect" can be found here.. Good update support through CC though.

Aperture: better conversion, better management, but no control over some terrible moire. Also update to Aperture X non existent. Poor show by Apple.

Capture One Pro; The Best for IQ and usability - just. Aperture still has the prize for workflow, but C1Pro can handle the X-trans files beautifully. If you've seen Moire in your files using Aperture or Lightroom you'll love that Phase One has got this right.

1 upvote
jadot

In any case, the differences are small. Small enough for you to keep using the DAM that you like or are used to.

Fuji could help themselves here by opening up the X-Trans to Adobe, Apple et al. I can see people coming from 36 MP might easily make the mistake of assuming that the Fuji's aren't performing in the same way that they're used to, at least at pixel level.

Personally, I'm more than happy with the X-Trans look. It's different from a DSLR, but then I knew that coming from the X100. The colour rendition is superb and the resolution doesn't kill my computer. And RAW files OOC need less attention in post.

I'll be happier still if the X-Trans conversion is given a work over by Aperture & Lightroom, but until then I'm out making pictures without compromise and without carrying a tank around my neck.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
AlexRuiz

That is exactly right. A lot of the negative comments come from people who don't own the X-T1, but have read something negative about it on the internet. Others, like you mention, hate the camera because it overshadows whatever they own at the moment. At the end of the day, this camera is superb in many ways...IQ, design, performance, etc. To understand it, you need to own it and shoot with it in many different situations.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
badi

One more thought on raw processing.

The latest update of Adobes LR (and ACR) improved a lot. They added support for camera profiles, and it works rather well, maybe not always perfectly identical with the camera's own jpg, but close enough that i quit shooting raw+jpg, and i swiched to raw only.

However, the watercolor effect that appears on some photos (especially foliage) is due to the sharpening, and not the demozaicing itself. In this cases, if you do zero sharpening, and after that apply sharpening properly in PS to the exported image you get incredible great detail and no watercolor :)

But, to be honest, this is better to do no matter the camera...

2 upvotes
Maverick2007

Perfect Water color effect!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thegoosenoir/13276200455

Also Bonus is you can get Nice shadow too !!!!! Very impressed by post processing by Fuji! Wait a sec, there should have been button to add additional artifacts with one click of button like sweat or artificial rain etc? Hows that Fuji?

1 upvote
theprehistorian

:D

Yeah, seriously though, I'm surprised that the weird behaviour of the X-Trans sensor doesn't get more discussion in reviews such as this one on DP Review. I've just been up to Scotland and shot my X100S and D7100 together, with lots of rocks, cairns, trees, boulders etc. It has to be said that the X-Trans produces absolutely vile images with this subject matter (camera JPG and RAF processed in LR 5.4)... at pixel level, I hasten to add; taken in the round they look fine. But then so would a photo from just about any modern camera! At the moment, the X-Trans seems to work well enough with skin, architecture, and smooth surfaces; I took a photo of a fishing boat for e.g. and it looked fantastic. Shoot a cairn though with a few trees in the background and it really doesn't look good at all. Incidentally, further investigation is leading me to think that the problem lies in the way sharpening algorithms react to X-Trans files...

2 upvotes
pinnacle

Lightroom isn't there yet. Photo Ninja is there and you can get excellent detail from foliage and other problem image elements. Adobe just hasn't been able to figure it out.

Once I learned how well the X-Trans processor and Photo Ninja worked together I changed my workflow and images look very, very good.

0 upvotes
theprehistorian

pinnacle - I hear you, but LR 5.4 produces JPGs virtually indistinguishable from the camera's, especially now it includes Fuji's film simulations. If you compare them at 100 % - LR 5.4 at default vs the camera JPG at defaults - the biggest difference is that the camera seems to apply even more sharpening than Adobe and looks even more artificial and 'paint-like'. In some shots, I find I get the best result by simply disabling Adobe's 'Detail' processes, so that there's no extra sharpening or noise reduction. I'm not crazy about NR and sharpening anyway, but if I want a bit of extra sharpness, I get a nicer result using Smart Sharpen in Photoshop, or RL Deconvolution in RawTherapee. Nonetheless, there's no hiding from the fact that the supposed advantages of the X-Trans - i.e. reduced moire - come at quite a high price. I imagine Fuji know you can't sharpen X-Trans images much, hence the somewhat soft and smooth appearance of the images when you compare them to competing cameras.

0 upvotes
badi

@theprehistorian:
yes, the horrid effects are due to sharpening, i added an answer to the comment just above to explain my findings.

I generally export all the raws from fujis Xtrans with zero sharpening, and then in PS, apply smart sharpening in lab color space, only to the luminance channel.... the results are pretty stunning compared to the "water effect" produced by LR's sharpening.

2 upvotes
Gazeomon

@Badi. Does one really have to subscribe Adobe Photoshop in order to get properly sharpened photos out of the XT1? I get pin sharp foliage out of my Pentax K3 in Lightroom 5.4 without a problem, and the K3 is not much larger than the XT1, especially with the Ltd. primes. Shooting RAW only!

0 upvotes
Paninni

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

0 upvotes
Martin1980

What zoom dial?

5 upvotes
laughingor

is the real dial...used for zoom in/out during review mode. I guess.. i feel that mine X-T1's real dial also not very smooth. perhaps one day will spoil too.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 20, 2014)

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

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HeyItsJoel

Precisely.

1 upvote
pinnacle

Looks like Fujifilm did their homework. The migration of M43 users to Fujifilm should have Olympus and Panasonic a little concerned.

7 upvotes
Bueche

I've just migrated to M43 (Olympus E-P5) from Fujifilm (X-A1 and X-E2). Fujifilm have done many things right, but due to som wierd mushiness, nature photography is all but impossible with Fujifilm cameras.

1 upvote
sarge39

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

15 upvotes
laughingor

can share some setting or your experience regarding the X-T1 set up? looking forward to your advice.

0 upvotes
philinnz

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

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

6 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov

And it uses far better lenses :)

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
pinnacle

Have you used any of the current X system lenses? The IQ is outstanding from almost all of them.

3 upvotes
jeremyclarke

It's "the best" by default because it has modern internals, how could an older camera compete? The only real competition are the other new cameras (which is beats in pretty much every way).

If you want the S5 to invalidate the quote you should focus on it being more ambitious.

0 upvotes
philinnz

the point was, the S5 (and of course the previous S1, S2, S3) were all DSLR camera's that were all top notch cameras at their time. But instead of developing an S6 which many Fuji fans would have loved they stepped backwards in concentrating on P&S and more lately the mirrorless camera's. For many years the S5 was THE wedding camera. For pro work you need pro lenses that Nikon or Canon make. Fuji needed to continue building DSLR camera's that utilized the Nikon lens range. they didn't do it, they missed the boat

0 upvotes
jeremyclarke

As I understand it Fuji has always been a more profitable lens company than camera company, or at least that's how it's been for a while. Seems to me selling a camera (razor) without being able to profit from the lenses (razorblades) probably wasn't going to be profitable for them.

Also I'm glad they aren't dependent on Nikon, since I love the light, top-quality APSC-native lenses that Fuji is producing and no one else seems willing to.

2 upvotes
GaBen

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

2 upvotes
jackspra

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

1 upvote
J2Gphoto

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

4 upvotes
Dimit

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

14 upvotes
steveh0607

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

2 upvotes
J2Gphoto

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

3 upvotes
pinnacle

Steve Huff's opinion's are worthless. He has one goal in his photographic world and that is to drive content and his income with "click-thrus" on his useless web site.

He loves controversy because it attracts people to his site. He doesn't care how he gets traffic. He will post anything there to get attention.

People should steer well clear of him and his opinions.

3 upvotes
jeremyclarke

Aside from all the questions of journalistic integrity, I think the most important thing we should keep in mind about Steve Huff and his love for MFT is that he seems to have a full set of f/0.95 lenses from Leica etc. any one of which costs more than the MFT cameras he reviews.

The one indisputable failure of MFT is DoF control, since they cannot get shallow DoF at all with their kit lenses and even with expensive f/1.4 lenses they still barely compete with slow primes on APS-C. Steve doesn't think this is a problem, but I wouldn't either if I had f/0.95 lenses when I need them. In that way he's really out of touch with real people who will probably use just the kit lens (f/3.5!) while saving up for more.

Otherwise I find his site entertaining and informative. His passion is infectious and makes me excited about the gear instead of critical and snobby which I like. Intelligent readers will realize not to take it too seriously.

3 upvotes
kreislauf

i disagree!

we want to have good and reliable reviews about products, some of that cost thousands of dollars... (thank you DPReview Team BTW!!!)

but of course we want to have it FOR FREE!
hello?

for me it's ok that steve and ken use their websites as part of their income. we don't HAVE TO VISIT
but i do! because i like to get information about stuff i find interesting. the more the better.

and personally i love steve huffs reviews. they are fun most of the time and he is sort of grounded when he asks you in the reviews: "Do you think you need this?"
and he might have some f0.95 lenses for his m43 cameras, but he repeats it all the time: olympus 2/12, 1.8/17 and 1.8/45 besides the voigtlanders...
and he convinced me about smaller-than-FF cameras. For example i do have a nikon V1, a "toy" camera but for me it (almost) does everything i need.

1 upvote
Ijuf Nonac

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

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

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

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
MJJSevilla

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

8 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac

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

2 upvotes
KingOfAtlantis

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

1 upvote
Apollo XI

Mmhhhh. I have been using LR from version 2, but with my XT1 (I previously had a XE1) I have to say, for my experience, that Capture One demosaics the raw files far better than LR.

...my 10 cents.

1 upvote
scotbot

This a problem with the Adobe software, not the camera. Apparently there are still people who don't realise that Adobe are incapable of writing software that works properly with XTrans files, even though Capture One and other applications including the inicamera engine produce outstanding results.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Wilight

"When this image is viewed at 100%, everything becomes a complete mess!!"
So, you take an exemple whose the only visible things in focus are at the extreme borders of the frame, from a photo taken by a not-so-good zoom lens at 172mm, f/16 (the smallest aperture, highly affected by diffraction), 1/140 speed (not free from motion blur) to judge the capabilities of X-Trans sensor? Or were you looking at the OOF parts of the frame?
By the way, I really appreciate most of Dpreview reviews. But one of the problems I see is this kind of image in the samples gallery of a camera review. Even the colours are affected by the optics of a lens. The same applies to very high iso images in a lens review.
In my opinion, only the very best lenses (in this case:14, 35 and 56mm primes) should be used in a camera review. Also trying to keep the apertures between f/2.8 - f/5.6.
So, this is a good exemple to show the lens limitations, not the sensor IQ.

1 upvote
Gazeomon

@MJJ Sevilla. In order to enjoy the XT1 I have to buy another converter and radically change my workflow? Thanks, I'd rather stick with what I've got right now ( Pentax K3 & Lightroom ).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Fri13

Problem is not in adobe, while it does has own, but the sensor just is incapable to capture green details correctly. Sorry Fuji fans but time to learn ugly truth 😬

0 upvotes
kiw

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

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

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
jeremyclarke

Fuji doesn't offer cheap lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 or the atrocious 75-300mm with no IS, so technically you can argue their lenses are "all expensive". That said system camera lenses are ALL expensive compared to other things in life, and the only way to make them not be is to make them super cheap. Fuji only makes good/great lenses, so none of them are cheap.

Aside from that they are pretty much all great value, and far cheaper than their Canon equivalents (e.g. 35mm f/1.4 which is $1400 from Canon and $600 from Fuji).

2 upvotes
random name

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

6 upvotes
BarnET

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

5 upvotes
SAPuddy

Or, you can use your smart phone or tablet and bracket as many frames as you want. It is what I do with not problems.

0 upvotes
Valeriu 64

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

Valeriu

6 upvotes
Fri13

Best what I have found in my tests were that E-M1 wins hands down. It does it by continually sampling WB to find out the correct way. Results are that 99,9% of shots have right white balance.
The bad side is, balance is so correct that light being always white can look unnatural when mixed with different kind shots and you need to tweak WB sometimes to wrong direction to get more natural WB. It is otherwise like always shooting with calibrates lights and settings.

0 upvotes
JohnNewman

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

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

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake

As it happens, the shutter sound is both discreet and discrete. Personally I'd also argue that there's a distinct difference between letting a typo slip into a 20 page review, and any sensible definition of the word 'literacy'. But thanks for pointing it out anyway.

4 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac

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

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

3 upvotes
Class A

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
13 upvotes
AlexRuiz

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.

6 upvotes
tlinn

K3 fan by chance?

0 upvotes
Impulses

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

0 upvotes
waxwaine

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

0 upvotes
SayKeys

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

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

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

0 upvotes
waxwaine

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

0 upvotes
mamiller

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.

6 upvotes
AlexRuiz

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.

4 upvotes
mamiller

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

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

1 upvote
Der Steppenwolf

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

10 upvotes
mamiller

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

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

1 upvote
Couscousdelight

"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
4 upvotes
makofoto

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

1 upvote
Impulses

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

1 upvote
Fri13

Usein grip and you can swap battery without problems.

2 upvotes
ebbo

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

0 upvotes
Menedem

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

0 upvotes
mamiller

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

While that is true, we're not comparing this camera to a film camera and the issue here is battery life not the size of your SD card. I'm curious why mirrorless owners are so forgiving about such a basic flaw in their system. With my old Canon A620 point and shoot, I can muster over 1500 shots out of a set of AA rechargeable batteries, over 2500 using a set of Energizer Ultimate Lithium single-use batteries. Ditto with my old Pentax K-X. There is no reason Fuji could not have equipped the XT-1 with a more robust battery, one rated for 700+ shots for instance, which would make it more closely comparable to the class of camera the reviewers suggested the camera belonged.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mamiller

More to the point, I'm still wondering why poor battery life was not listed as a con in the review. It is mediocre (i.e., about average) for a mirrorless camera and poor for a camera the reviewers were suggesting belonged in the same class as the 7D, D7100 and K-3.

0 upvotes
Jon Holstein

I can agree with you that the batterylife isnt great, you could even call it mediocre (compared to the ones with good batterylife, about 500, or great about 700).
But to fit bigger battery, they would have to make the body larger, and in the class this is competing, that is not an option.

Charging would most likely take longer.

On the other hand, the batterylife should be good enough to get most entusiasts through the day.
And those getting in to interchangle cameras for the benefit of beeing able to change their lenses, would have no problem packing another battery in their bag.

Many of the time-lapsed work I've seen shift during recording, but you hardly notice that. If you are using it as a professional tool, that aboslutely cant shift during time-lapse, well then I dont see why you would be looking at this camera to begin with, most of the qualities of the X-t1 is in areas where such a tool would not reak the benefits of it.

(No AAs in the grip is a bit of let-down as well)

0 upvotes
Fri13

You can! Get a battery grip like HLD-7 and you can swap battery on the fly! I do it often. I have three batteries and one is in body, grip is used and when it is time I swap the battery in grip and place it to charge. At the time I need to swap battery again it has been charged and swap again.

If I would have 4 instead 3 it would come only more difficult to track what is where, but give wider change to get off-site shooting. With two battery I have managed to pull 950+ shots easily EVF on all the time in the three hour period. Three batteries gives huge difference compared to two.

And having 4-5 batteries in back wouldn't be a problem for me, still lighter and more flexible than any DSLR or 1.5-1.6x crop factor camera.

1 upvote
munro harrap

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

0 upvotes
Rbrt

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

1 upvote
OfcrMike

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

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher

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

5 upvotes
retro76

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

7 upvotes
AlexRuiz

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.

1 upvote
Couscousdelight

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

2 upvotes
Ijuf Nonac

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

2 upvotes
LaFonte

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

2 upvotes
Paninni

You are missing photo samples taken with 56mm 1.2 R lense.

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator

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.

1 upvote
AlexRuiz

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

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

1 upvote
SelfMotivator

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

1 upvote
SelfMotivator

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

0 upvotes
SelfMotivator

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

0 upvotes
Dimit

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

8 upvotes
AlexRuiz

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

5 upvotes
Fri13

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

2 upvotes
Clint009

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

Question about Fuji lenses:

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

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

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

1 upvote
akhyar

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

3 upvotes
the-dude-75

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

1 upvote
lonelyspeck

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

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

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

0 upvotes
HeyItsJoel

Thanks for the input akhyar.

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

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe

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

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

0 upvotes
edwy

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

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
MJJSevilla

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

1 upvote
darngooddesign

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

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

0 upvotes
LaFonte

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

1 upvote
RikPiks

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.

5 upvotes
sdgreen

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

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

Seems a very short sighted design by Fuji & Panasonic

2 upvotes
Fri13

OM-D E-M1 has:

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

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

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

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

4 upvotes
random name

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

3 upvotes
lonelyspeck

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

1 upvote
LaFonte

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

0 upvotes
berbmit

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

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

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Stephan Def

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.

7 upvotes
Sebastien Guyader

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.

4 upvotes
Northgrove

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
2 upvotes
berbmit

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

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

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

2 upvotes
Stephan Def

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LaFonte

Berbmit, I think you got a very sweet deal.

0 upvotes
Clyde Thomas

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

3 upvotes
darngooddesign

Or Fujica ST.

1 upvote
RichRMA

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

1 upvote
Clyde Thomas

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.

9 upvotes
A7matt

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

1 upvote
LaFonte

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

4 upvotes
ethwit

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

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

4 upvotes
Petka

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

1 upvote
Mike FL

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

0 upvotes
Neodp

Not impressed with any new camera offering.

3 upvotes
PhotoKhan

My dear, dear Canon colors...

0 upvotes
bawbaw

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

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

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).

1 upvote
LaFonte

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

0 upvotes
bawbaw

tripodfan: How often do people change iso that instead of a single button push on any other fuji body they need a dial? the other issues if you really want fast AF, better brighter more accurate VF, Weather sealing... buy a pro body SLR either nikon or canon. I can fit a d800 and a prime lens in the same size of bag I could fit my M9 and the smallest M mount lens in.. the M being much smaller than the fuji.

Petka: Yes everyone can afford 2 bodies, that's why when I'm out in Ferrari with a super telephoto taking pictures of stuff I think to myself that the EVF on the xpro 1 is really not worth it.. it's nearly unusable in comparison ;)

LaFonte: Once again.. X-Pro push the lever and you have the same thing.. EVF kicks in same sensor same image quality and once again if you want a big bright VF and fast AF you want a proper SLR with phase detect AF and lenses that match up in terms of speed.

This camera is a slight shift of position on the VF and very little else.

0 upvotes
tripodfan

"if you really want fast AF, better brighter more accurate VF, Weather sealing... buy a pro body SLR either nikon or canon."

To summarise:

1) You say there is not much difference between the XPro1 and the XT1.

2) I point out several differences.

3) You say that if I want those different features, that I should not buy an XT1, but I should buy a pro-level DSLR.

Why bring DSLRs into this all of a sudden? They are completely different cameras. We were comparing the XT1 and the XPro1.

0 upvotes
sensai

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

1 upvote
Petka

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

0 upvotes
sensai

Exactly my point: I am out of cash...

1 upvote
Scott Eaton

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.

19 upvotes
crashpc

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

6 upvotes
DStudio

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.

2 upvotes
crashpc

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

2 upvotes
jimkahnw

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

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.

2 upvotes
Fox Fisher

Sniff sniff, I smell some astroturfing.

0 upvotes
crashpc

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

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

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

Thanks for looking at it.

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
crashpc

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

0 upvotes
DStudio

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

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

0 upvotes
corbus

DPR - generally I like your reviews.

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

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

What's the reason behind that unlogic decision?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
sceptical1

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

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

4 upvotes
sceptical1

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

In the future we can do it using software.

0 upvotes
MV Atlanta

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
RichRMA

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

1 upvote
photo perzon

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

0 upvotes
KingOfAtlantis

no difference or 10% difference. Which is it?

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

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.

3 upvotes
HeyItsJoel

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
6 upvotes
jadot

The grass is always yellow-greener, Joe.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SimonWilder

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

4 upvotes
Erik Pavirik

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

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.

1 upvote
helltormentor

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

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

0 upvotes
helltormentor

@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

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

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

0 upvotes
57even

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

1 upvote
Mike99999

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

6 upvotes
57even

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.

2 upvotes
HFLM

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

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

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

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.

1 upvote
diaphanousvale

I have read 90% or better of the DPR review of the X-T1 and have not seen a satisfactory description of the fully manual use of the Camera. One of the uses I want the camera for is street photography, and in that regard, to get as close as possible to the way I used my Leica rangefinder film cameras using a zone-focusing methodology to achieve better than acceptable focus and depth of field for quick shooting requiring framing without focusing. A quick incident light-meter read usually worked to get the shutter speed and f-stop combo right, and Bob's your uncle. I'd really appreciate seeing some discussion of this way of shooting.

0 upvotes
chillgreg

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

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

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

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

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

3 upvotes
chillgreg

Thank you.

0 upvotes
Rod McD

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

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

0 upvotes
brendon1000

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

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

0 upvotes
LaFonte

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

0 upvotes
Total comments: 651
1234