Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X-T1 Review

April 2014 | By Andy Westlake, Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,288.00


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
693
I own it
643
I want it
98
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 581
1234
JeanPierre Thibaudeau
By JeanPierre Thibaudeau (5 months ago)

Nice overall but about 120% over saturation in colours and contrast.

Would have to tweak the settings to get something more natural and realistic.

Also, the white balance is off in some pictures, too much blue.

Although in the same category than the EM1, the colours don't even come close.

I'll pass.

5 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (5 months ago)

Maybe they played with the default settings and goofed them up...

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

It's really not for the point-and-shoot photographer JeanPierre. Sorry.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

It was due to shadow got clipped in too early in that camera default setting making things more saturated and contrasty. There are lots of setting you can change to make it more tame like review said that in one of page.

0 upvotes
miksi
By miksi (5 months ago)

Why this category?

1 upvote
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Because it just belongs there.
Try it and you'll understand why so many professionals are starting to use the x-series camera's.

Ignore the marketing cull from Canikon that the only future is in FF. Mirrorless Fuji's are only half the weight of a pro DSLR still the same IQ.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
miksi
By miksi (5 months ago)

Shouldn't it be in the mirrorless category like E-M1 and others?

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (5 months ago)

Thanks for the review. Suspect I will never pony up the money for this camera... but I can dream :D

1 upvote
Ramius
By Ramius (5 months ago)

Camera body same as Sony A7, but not full format = Fail.

4 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

Sony has only a few native lenses. Fail. I would buy based on which system fits your needs better. The Fuji X has a very complete and capable set of lenses. Today. I have A7R and it is a great camera, but I mostly use Canon FDn lenses with it.

21 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (5 months ago)

Full format... is that larger than large format?

7 upvotes
s11loop
By s11loop (5 months ago)

Sony A7 full frame small body with gigantic lens that makes u look like a kid wearing your grandpa pants = Fail.

17 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

Boo. The size of this camera is a well executed balance of reasonable compactness and ergonomic ease. Why this default mentality to full frame? Full frame serves the needs of certain photography; as does medium format; as does large format; and, yes, as does APS-C and m4/3 and 1" and on and on.

4 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

Tiny body and tiny lens that makes u look like a kid wearing no pants = Fail.

I have no beef here, just wanted to participate in the = Fail game.

3 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (5 months ago)

People who think full frame makes them part of some special club and a better photographer = Fail

10 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (5 months ago)

Full frame but only few lenses and one of them is an overpriced zoom that cannot produce sharp corners. Fail.

6 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (5 months ago)

My heart goes out to those insecure photographers who let how they look, with camera in hand, affect their choice of equipment.

Once you reach maturity, you will realise that "coolness" was transient while having a store of great photographs is for life and beyond.

1 upvote
Franco8
By Franco8 (5 months ago)

Hi Ramius If you claim that Sony produces a full format, then what do you call medium format Twice As Full or maybe large format Four Times As Full.
I dont recall ever having a glass of beer that is twice as full.

2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

What do you think you are doing? Are you crazy to argue at each other for nothing? This makes this forum looks like a circus.

Fact is Fuji is NOT going to rush to make full frame mirrorless camera since there are thousands of photography around already own X system here with lots of lens design for APS-C sensor size. Fuji is fully aware of that. They are not stupid. If they make full frame, then they have to make lens to make it work with full frame thats the problem. Having it full frame and shortage of lens are a bad move making people irritating.

0 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (5 months ago)

Why would you make a FF camera for the 7% of ILC purchasers, most of whom are unlikely to leave Canikon due to size of their systems, when you can sell to the other 93% and don't need to develop two systems in parallel.
Commercially it wouldn't make sense.
As Sony will eventually realise.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
SaltLakeGuy
By SaltLakeGuy (5 months ago)

At a time when you virtually can't buy a "Bad" camera the X-T1 brings some interesting character to the table. Like so many things intrinsic to particular brands, the Fuji's sensor does in fact imbue a unique character to it's files. You either fall in love with it (as I have) or you dismiss it for some other beloved feature set of another manufacturer. As a complete package the X-T1 does a fine job of being a effective photographic tool whether you're a seasoned professional or a budding serious enthusiast. It's strengths are undeniable. It's quirks are there as they are with virtually ANY manufacturer. Once past those however one is certainly capable of finding the X-T1 a very highly satisfying camera system.

16 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

This post wins for being the most mature and insightful, period.

1 upvote
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (5 months ago)

Exactly, and I don't have one, but the review and the cadre of followers makes it obvious you can get great results, regardless of your level. At a different point I would have considered this, but too heavily invested in other systems.....

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (5 months ago)

Is it just me that misreads the name of the Toshiba memory card as Excretia? Talk about a crappy name ;)

0 upvotes
KennyXYZ
By KennyXYZ (5 months ago)

Yeah, weird name. Almost bought a SanDisk 32gb, 45mb read/write card for 60 bucks when I saw what I thought was some off brand SDXC card made in Timbuktu that had a green and black lable with the name "Exceria." For the same 60 bucks I can get 64gb with 95mb read and 60mb write. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that Toshiba was the manufacturer. LOL. "Exceria" works great in my XE-2.

0 upvotes
Smokymtnhiker
By Smokymtnhiker (5 months ago)

67% of the resolution, no in body IS, no OVF, no 200K rated shutter and it gets a better score than the K3.

Wow.

9 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

The Fuji has the no rabid fans perk gives the camera a 10% to critical to-hit AF bonus against BIFs.

7 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

Maybe you should try one?

4 upvotes
Matz03
By Matz03 (5 months ago)

why is an OVF a benefit again?? IS within Lenses is some of the best around. K3 is a fine little camera though, would be my choice if I was into the flipity flopper inside

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (5 months ago)

And that's why scores are relative to camera type and class...

2 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

Matz03: DSLFF, digital single lens flippity flopper.;)

0 upvotes
xrokx
By xrokx (5 months ago)

@Timbukto... fallout is so rad.

0 upvotes
logan ross
By logan ross (5 months ago)

Hi,
Great Review. Is it possible for you to elaborate on two things:
1) when adjusting for Raw conversion NR and overstated ISO, how does the X-t1 standup to competitors such as the Sony, D7100, and k3?

2) You mentioned that the X-T1 was "strong competition" for the three aforementioned cameras? Can you elaborate, particularly with respect to image quality?

Thank you

2 upvotes
Luego
By Luego (5 months ago)

It seems Fuji has given video operation some priority, by placing the video button where the Fn button used to be.

The EC dial is made stiffer, thus it requires thumb and index finger to turn and one therefore activates video unintentionally...:-(

Hopefully Fuji will allow us to program the video button or disable its function all together in future firmware update.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
caver3d
By caver3d (5 months ago)

Same overall score as the Olympus E-M1. Really can't go wrong with either camera. And then there is the Panasonic GH3/4. Mirrorless is coming of age and finally putting the heat on dSLRs.

3 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

BINGO

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (5 months ago)

As always, Fujifilm never fails to impress with their serious entries in the enthusiast/prosumer camera market. Great camera! Great review! I predict that Fujifilm and Sony will gobble up the lion's share of the compact system camera market much the same as Canon and Nikon rule the DSLR market. It'll be the "Hunger Games" for the rest of the players. And, at least 2 of the hungriest players are simply going to starve to death. :)

2 upvotes
PedroMZ
By PedroMZ (5 months ago)

I would not discount Olympus.They have some first class zoom lenses the 9-18(very good and very affordable) the 16-120 and the brilliant and fast 50-200 . Also hints of an Oly FF in the wind . Sony lenses are a mixed bag and not cheap. Mind you Sony owns a part of Olympus anyway so who knows.

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (5 months ago)

Pedro, I agree that Oly has some first class lenses. Unfortunately, they also have several first class lawsuits sucking up all of their camera profits. No company can stay in business that way. Just ask Minolta.

2 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (5 months ago)

I would also not bet against Samsung. The NX system is already good and beginning to turn some heads, perhaps with the potential, in time, to transcend the "Samsung is just a phone manufacturer" perception. Not saying it will happen, but it is conceivable that it might, particularly given Samsung's potential to shift capital from one market to the other. Ricoh and Sony and others might also have this capability but their financial outlooks are slightly less rosy. But I am by no means an economist.

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Sony's economical outlook is far worse then any other company at this moment with its junk rating on Wall Street.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if they would sell off their Consumer Products including their Digital Imaging product group.

Then going ahead as a component maker for OEMs.

2 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (5 months ago)

Olympus doesn't make any 'camera profits'. Having said that provision has been made for much of damages and the other division's profitability means that it the lawsuits are unlikely to be terminal.
If the "accounting scandal' hadn't occurred they most likely would have failed back in the early 1990s

0 upvotes
lcolonezi
By lcolonezi (5 months ago)

Nice camera, but no way this should be pricing like Sony A7... a full frame camera with amazing video...

3 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

The A7 is indeed very competitively priced. The A7 is $1.6K though, the X-T1 is $1.3K or 18% less expensive.

And keep in mind the A7 lacks lenses. A camera is only good if it's part of a good system.

10 upvotes
Franco8
By Franco8 (5 months ago)

Another moron that calls a 35mm camera as a full camera. It is half the size of a medium format camera

5 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

First it was megapixels, now its full frame -
Forget the marketing culprit. They just want you to believe that A is better then B. For every plus there is a negative as well.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
kinglau711
By kinglau711 (5 months ago)

Very good review ! Worth the wait ! Thx

2 upvotes
IstvanNagy
By IstvanNagy (5 months ago)

Looking at the Image Comparison Scenes, there are some very noticeable differences between the X-T1 and X-E2:
- There is a dent? on the aluminum tray in the bottom left corner on the right side of the brush. The X-T1 has a strong high-light clipping (lack of detail) in a larger area here. The X-E2 has much less clipping than the X-T1, other cameras don't clip this area at all (or maybe a small line). It looks very strange (and bad) on X-T1's picture (both JPG and RAW).
- The text 'R&E Encaustic' (at the same corner) looks sharper and more contrasty on the X-E2. The X-E2 has slightly stronger contrast in the fine details (e.g. green plants top right corner).
- It is easier to differentiate the last three black fields (17-19) on the X-E2 on the Kodak grey chart than on the X-T1. The Nikon D7100 performs really bad on these fields btw. The brightness in the first field here (A) is noticeably stronger on the X-T1 than X-E2.

Very likely, Fuji has changed the image processing on the XT-1.

0 upvotes
Sirandar
By Sirandar (5 months ago)

Looks like a great camera and the image quality seems almost as good as a Oly EM5 and it is about the same price.

4 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (5 months ago)

I image this being a little better the om5 especially in low light. I do believe they are both Sony sensor with different pattern layer on top, so the color should be similar. Processor is a factor more in jpeg then in raw. If I was in the market for another milc it would be this camera. I am fine with my setup now.

3 upvotes
FlowerHappy
By FlowerHappy (5 months ago)

Almost as Good, Ha-Ha that's a good one!

21 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

I have owned both, the EM-5 (sold a few months back) and now an X-T1. Be assured the IQ is better in the X-T1.

4 upvotes
badi
By badi (5 months ago)

@Spectro:
Actually for sensors with the same technology, the color quality is largely affected by the pattern on top. The exact colors used in the filter (the tonality of RGB) affect the color recording capability of the sensor.

Of course, you may ask why not this to be 100% accurate. They are not because allowing a bit of color blending (using a not strict red, but allow a bit adjacent spectral colors to get in) will provide the sensor a bit more sensitivity, and so on and on, and on....
And after that, there is the software that also affect the color response of the camera...

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nigel Ward 2
By Nigel Ward 2 (5 months ago)

Hopefully, there will soon be a gadget to unlock the ISO button....I'm ordering one...

http://isounlocker.com/

2 upvotes
robertbrockmann
By robertbrockmann (5 months ago)

Very nice and comprehensive review. However, I wonder if in video camera reviews there is a section that says "it does / does not take very good stills". Save for a very few pro DSLR cameras that do yield astounding video results, if you want to make videos, buy a camcorder. Speaking strictly for myself, Fuji could completely kill the video option.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

"If you want to take video buy a camcorder"

Well the Panasonic gh2 hacked gh3 and gh4 can great professional video. These are MUCH better the any video camera in their respective price range. They have been used in excellent nature videos.

It's a con people looking for an all round mirrorless that can do both will be dissapointed. Looking at just stills the xt-1 is quiet phenomenal. And that's why it got an real high 84% score and an gold award.

8 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (5 months ago)

Who really wants to carry a camera and a seprate camcorder??? How can you use both at the same time?
You are right, it is a "con".

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ButterflySkies
By ButterflySkies (5 months ago)

Cameras like these are mainly for stills. But if someone whats to shoot both stills and video, why on earth would that person buy a still camera and then spend extra money on a video camera and pack extra weight when he/she could just buy a camera that does both video and stills.
There are tons of still cameras with great video modes, there's no reason to leave it out anymore.

4 upvotes
DouglasGottlieb
By DouglasGottlieb (5 months ago)

"If you want to take video buy a camcorder" may have been true up until recently, but it sure sounds like the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A7s will provide pro challenging video while delivering best in class (okay, maybe tied with Fuji) stills. What a great time it is to be a photographer, videographer, or both! For me, as the review also points out, lens lineup is also key. M43 is unrivaled in mirrorless in that arena, but Fuji is also doing a great job. Sony on the other hand, has a lot to prove when it comes to supporting their typically well appointed hardware with a range of similarly capable glass. They always seem to lag in that area... NEX! Cough, cough!!! ;)

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

I think if most on here were really honest with themselves they'd realize they EITHER shoot MOSTLY stills or video, not both equally. Those that TRULY need the best of both in ONE body will invariably use something else.

And let's not forget....the reason video is so good in Sony and Panasonic and Canon is because those companies excel in camcorders. It's not a mystery.

0 upvotes
badi
By badi (5 months ago)

one more thing to remember...
Sony A7s is developed for video, actually if you want amazing top quality photo and video, you will probably end up with a A7R + A7S, so two cameras :). But you can use both lenses on both.

Maybe Fuji should think of doing some "more video oriented camera" ... like an XT-V :D

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (5 months ago)

What's the next review on tap? Should be G1X-ii (however the hell you want to abbreviate that)

0 upvotes
Underdog 3000
By Underdog 3000 (5 months ago)

Next is the GH4 and A7s. Are you not paying attention?
These reviews will certainly be quicker than the K-3

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (5 months ago)

Nice review and very well rounded cam this Fuji! Excellent choice for many shooters clearly.

3 upvotes
TheScrambler
By TheScrambler (5 months ago)

It's nice. It's small. It feels good and it's quality is nearly at full frame level. But should i really leave APSC-DSLR technology ? I really dont know...;-)

1 upvote
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

According to this very forum a year ago, APSC was dead...then the K3 and X-T1 came along.

4 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

I am glad with the APS-C sensor inside the X-T1.
Best of both world allowing for lighter glass and therewith a totally lighter system.

By buying the right lenses you can more or less get the same results as you would have with a full frame DSLR camera.

Personally I don't see the need for a FF Fuji mirrorless camera.

8 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (5 months ago)

I want using my legacy lenses, so another brand new APS-C camera is more of the same c*** to me.

2 upvotes
SBoudreault
By SBoudreault (5 months ago)

Well, then get a legacy camera for those legacy lenses, and stop whining ...

7 upvotes
FriendlyWalkabout
By FriendlyWalkabout (5 months ago)

No auto composition function!
No auto talent function!

= No buy!

15 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

"Extremely accurate single-shot autofocus, even with fast lenses"

This is why I won't shoot a DSLR if I can help it. After going mirrorless I like that my photos are more reliably in focus. There is some learning curve to how CDAF/Hybrid focus cameras operate (like watching that background is not higher contrast), but overall I have been very happy with focus accuracy.

6 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

Actually accurate and fast AF results is exactly why I hang onto my 6D even though I've explored and entertain mirrorless camera's to a good degree. What needs to die as quick a death as possible are PDAF camera's with no MFA. And if there are poor combinations like issues with the K-3 + old lens or the D7100 with the Nikkor 58 1.4, they need to be criticized. People criticized the Canon 1DMK3 endlessly over issues that required certain criteria, the same degree of criticism needs to be leveled at any officially manufacturer supported Body-Lens combination. Issues like the D7100 + 58 1.4 need to have an answer not...oh its PDAF, PDAF is always screwy. Overall however I like the AF accuracy I have on the 6D with bright lenses over the Olympus E-PM2 which has a pretty up-to-date AF engine, as good as anything except maybe the EM-1.

DSLR's should not only be able to nail wide-open primes in single shot but even in AF-C/AI-Servo modes...that is my expectation.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

Also different DSLR manufacturers have different approaches to PDAF...Canon supports MFA with even zooms and often their PDAF sensors include zig-zag wide aperture PDAF line sensors at f2.8, etc. Nikon tends to have more numerous narrower aperture f5.6 cross points. The K-3 is shown to have a f2.8 sensitive PDAF line at center as well. Every PDAF module is different and combination of lens with different max apertures may reveal different behaviors. The 5DMK3 and 1DX has been shown to have CDAF like accuracy on lenses that you cannot obtain similar DOF/brightness levels on mirrorless thus far.
Likewise stick on a 50mm 1.8 and experience some pretty crappy accuracy no matter what.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

I agree that DSLR cameras can be very accurate, but I prefer that a mirrorless camera is accurate with any lens anywhere in the frame with absolutely no calibration (phase detect fails near the edges because of how it works, especially with lenses with a lot of aberrations).

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

Yes but it is not always that simple. Given an infinite time-frame CDAF can always be accurate. But given the leap-frogging race to the top speed over anything heuristics and CDAF can be prone to misfocus as any AF mechanism that prioritizes speed over accuracy. Yes less mechanical/optical alignment issues to worry about, but software algorithms and engineers are not perfect. I have gotten misfocused shots before on either my EOS-M or Olympus E-PM2, and in some ways relying on age old PDAF mechanisms from Canikon may still have some waning benefits over cutting edge software algorithms. Eventually however software algorithms and related on-sensor PDAF is only going to get better. Eventually an EFCS enabled mirrorless camera should be able to track wonderfully without any mirror slap or shutter shock. That is not the state of affairs now but we are inching very close.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

BTW an example of speed over accuracy heuristic with CDAF - some lenses have significant field curvature...if you apply touch focus or focus on a single point in the frame, many speed demon CDAF camera's will rack focus until that tiny selection of the frame is considered to be in optimal focus. Yet sometimes through manual focusing you can get *more* of the frame in sharper focus if that is indeed your intent. But of course the best tool for this situation is usually focus peaking to examine the entire scene, etc.

0 upvotes
exdeejjjaaaa
By exdeejjjaaaa (5 months ago)

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

the curve for X-T1 doesn't look right but in ISO chart
Claff says X-T1 is more noisy than X-E2.

1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (5 months ago)

There is something wrong with that EM5 graph. It is almost a match with the Ideal 4/3 graph. This isn't happening for any other sensor size. Bill Claff's excellent page needs data from another current top m4/3s performer (EM1, GH4) for reference IMO. Anyone willing to contribute?

X-T1 is where it should be. On par with the best APS-C sensors:
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D7100,X-T1

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
exdeejjjaaaa
By exdeejjjaaaa (5 months ago)

did DPReview mention how Fuji cameras are working with flash (HSS, remote TTL, etc) ? EFCS ?

0 upvotes
CM WORKS
By CM WORKS (5 months ago)

Yes the X-T1 get a Great Gold Award. Thanks DPR.

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Gotta love the whiners.

- But my [ insert brand here] did not get as good of a score
- But the [ insert model here] has not been reviewed and came out first
- But I read that [insert internet myth here ] so the rating should be lower

22 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (5 months ago)

If you're so concerned about camera reviews being untainted by corporate cash (dpr "fanboys") you might want to try a site that's not owned by Amazon.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (5 months ago)

"But the [ insert model here] has not been reviewed and came out first"

This seems like a legitimate gripe to me. Think of the Pentax K-3, a camera that was apparently genuinely exciting, even winning a poll on sight for best camera (don't remember exact terms), but still took ages to get a review.

5 upvotes
calking
By calking (5 months ago)

Some of you obviously have DPR as the one, only, and final review site for cameras like the K3. When DPR doesn't produce what you want, when you want it, for FREE mind you, then you open a browser and Google for reviews of your fav make and model. I actually think some of you guys make your decision to buy based entirely on third party reviews without ever experiencing this equipment first-hand and making your OWN decisions. Act like MEN instead of sheep.

0 upvotes
Francesco De Lorenzo
By Francesco De Lorenzo (5 months ago)

Having to build a new system, would you buy the Fuji or Sony A7? They cost the same.
Thanks

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (5 months ago)

No secret, Sony has a lot better image quality, but you would have to use adapted lenses due to a paucity of native ones.

5 upvotes
Nick8
By Nick8 (5 months ago)

After few years you are going to change the camera and keep the lenses. Which set of lenses would you prefer? Fuji or Sony?

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

I would go with fuji. Yes the A7 is Full Frame and has better IQ, but as of right now, the Sony lens situation is a pain. I perfer not to have to manual focus, or deal with adapters.

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

That's not a question with an easy answer - both systems have their strengths. It depends a lot on what you want to shoot, which focal lengths you need and the relative importance to you of shooting experience vs. final output.

Neither is a bad choice, either could be the better choice for your needs. I don't believe there is a correct answer to the question, as asked.

7 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (5 months ago)

i disagree with Richard butler who's fence sitting response manages to say absolutely nothing at all in two paragraphs. If you have more than £2K and you value image quality over everything else, you will go with the Sony set up. The images with the Tamron and Sigma Art lenses are simply stunning and unattainable with the Fuji set up, add in much more versatile High ISO higher resolution, full frame, its an easy choice. The glass will keep on coming for these cameras as well. If you can't afford the sony set up then you will go for the Fuji - by no means a poor choice - a nice selection of glass, if not quite as amazing as some would have you believe and some nicely retro bodies with some real thought put into usability. AF on both is a bit meh and I'm personally not a fan of the Fuji 'look' from their sensor but i know a lot of people are. For the price of either, personally, id still go SLR for the much greater versatility but mirror less is looking better and better all the time

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

I have to disagree that it's an easy choice. There are comparable or brighter lenses available for the X-T1, for most focal lengths, which can nullify the advantage of FF over APS-C, in some situations. Whether Sony's future lens releases will counter this isn't clear at this point.

Equally, I'd argue the X-T1's JPEGs are much nicer than the Sony's (which without finding out the priorities of the OP, might be relevant). So it's simplistic to say that one offers better IQ.

AF is much better (with most lenses) on the Fujifilm, as is the handling (notwithstanding the caveats given in this review). That said, the Sony's video is unquestionably better.

At which point, depending on the OP's needs and expectations, either could be the better answer.

1 upvote
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Matty_boy, if one must the get best IQ possible for the money, I would not recommend the X-T1 nor the A7. I would recommend something like the D610. Great value for the IQ, and a very robust system in terms of lenses, flash, etc. Just saying.

0 upvotes
Francesco De Lorenzo
By Francesco De Lorenzo (5 months ago)

Thanks for the replies. I own an old and glorious Nikon FM3a with 45mm and 35-70 both f 2.8 35-70. More recently I took my picture with an excellent Canon G11. Today only use my Nokia 1020. Now I'm going to build a new photographic system. Both the Fuji that Sony offer this option. I love some Fuji’s viewfinder and some beautiful lens. Sony instead, the excellent image quality. The ideal would be a Sony with the Fuji viewfinder and a more developed optics park. So the question. Anyway , I don’t have snow in my pocket. I can wait

0 upvotes
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (5 months ago)

Fuji, I am jumping from Sony e-mount ASAP. Sony's E mount has been out longer and has very few quality fast lenses and I don't expect it to improve anytime soon. Look at the new FE mount 4 Lenses and 3 body's. Sony likes to sell bodies and gadgets and not camera systems. They are proving that they're an electronics company first not a camera company. Very sad as some of the cameras are great just noting to put in front of the senors.

0 upvotes
Bhima78
By Bhima78 (5 months ago)

Depends really. If you care about video, I'd consider the new Sony A7s over the Fuji or lookly closely at the Panasonic GH4. If it is mostly stills, I'd go with the Fuji as the lens selection is just that much better and the kit 2.8-4 zoom is quite stellar already.

0 upvotes
chadwads
By chadwads (5 months ago)

As others have said, you need to be clear on your requirements and expectations. I've lived with Fuji for a while but gave it up due to the demosaicing issues and the slowish body handling/AF of the X-Pro. Certainly Fuji has turned on the speed switch and many of those concerns have been negated with the newer models. Personally, I'm enjoying the A7 about as much as any camera I have owned. The files are stunning and between the 55/1.7, a couple of tiny M-Rokkors and some nice adapted A-mount lenses, I'm plenty covered BUT I also shoot A-mount so the synergy is stronger between platforms than if I was using Fuji as a second system. Point being, my needs are likely different than yours. If you are an enthusiast and just want one nice system camera with a great lens selection, then the Fuji May be the system for you.

But don't disregard Sony because of a fanboy's talking points about lens selection or that they make "gadgets". Their cameras have proved to be powerful photographic tools.

0 upvotes
s11loop
By s11loop (5 months ago)

Fuji. Cause reason is simple with reference from past track record, no doubt Sony is a big brand that makes television, Walkman and even AA batteries?! They tend to abandon their product line after sometime like their Vaio computer line. In this modern competitive market, the only product that I would be interested from Sony would be their Playstation. Camera? No thanks if you consider yourself a serious photographer.

2 upvotes
chadwads
By chadwads (5 months ago)

S11loop is clearly oblivious to the Sony Alpha legacy from Minolta. That's ok, many people are. Personally, I wish Sony just kept the Minolta brand so we wouldn't have to suffer these uninformed arguments claiming Sony is not a worthy camera manufacturer because they make other electronic goods. Do people realize what a fraction of Fuji's business goes into consumer imaging? Or that Sony sensors sit behind that demosaicing nightmare of a color filter?

Let's not even get into the discussion of the Minolta and Zeiss glass that is available to us "unserious photographers".

0 upvotes
matty_boy
By matty_boy (5 months ago)

i have to disagree that it isn't an easy choice. there are comparable lenses on both systems. saying they are brighter is disingenuous for practical applications (not academic arguments) a full frame with the same aperture will offer better low light performance every day of the year.

then there is a comparison of jpegs, and you call my comment simplistic!? IQ is always better on the Sony period it is technically and physically superior; whether jpegs are better on one versus the other is merely subjective, if we really want to compare IQ lets look at RAW and see the Sony is much better.

Then we hit AF, yes the sony isn't quick but for all practical applications (not academic timing measurements) neither set up offers anything that is capable of more than stationary object shooting the review says this, the trivial difference between AF isn't going to make the Fuji better at one kind of shot than the Sony in the real world. This is the crux, in the real world the Sony always wins

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (5 months ago)

Nothing can tame boundless love for Fuji cameras and prevent 84 point (balanced) score to happen, even this:

"One point we do have to make is that the X-T1 is nowhere near as good a movie camera as it is for shooting stills. Manual control is limited, and video image quality is unusually poor. It's OK for casual use, but if high quality video is high on your list of priorities, you'll probably want to look elsewhere."

5 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

I'm so tired of people disregarding great cameras because the video features aren't fancy enough... it's like saying the latest Marvel comics movie wasn't any good because the teaser after the credits wasn't great.

Different cameras for different purposes.

21 upvotes
Richard Franiec
By Richard Franiec (5 months ago)

No disregard for obvious strengths but "object of desire" as the review is titled says it all LOL.
BTW, I don't use my still cameras for videos. But since it become integral part of the package, the overall performance rating should reflect that clearly. Other-words, if XT-1 video would be great instead of lousy should it deserve score of 95?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
dougjgreen1
By dougjgreen1 (5 months ago)

Well if video was not part of the rating, this camera's score would probably be pushing 90. Clearly, the video score matters, but no way is it of equal weight as the still image score, because most folks don't use video, and many of those that do don't take it seriously. And if you do, well both Sony and Panasonic have better products for you. Basically, for the 75% or more of us who don't care at all about video, this is probably the best camera DPR has tested. For me personally, the only reason I'm not going to drop my Micro 4/3 gear and get this is the size of the entire kit including lenses compared to my E-PL5 and it's mainly tiny set of lenses.

BTW Richard, don't get upset just because this is one of the diminshingly small batch of new cameras that won't need the benefit of one of your aftermarket grips.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

If you're in the market for a good stills camera, why should its video performance affect that score at all? Why not score video performance separately for those interested in buying a video camera?

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Show us your works of art, taken with your best of the best camera yabokkie ;)

8 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (5 months ago)

Well, of all camera features there is, video is perhaps the hardest one to quantify in a score, especially since excellent video may require lower sensor resolution to avoid resampling causing moire. The performances can end up in conflict with each other. You can see this with the Panasonic GH4. It's an awesome micro 4/3 video camera, but not the best micro 4/3 stills camera.

That's what I think about this anyway. I find only a minor score hit more understandable here than, say, for the sub-optimal controls on the back that kept popping up throughout the review.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
lcolonezi
By lcolonezi (5 months ago)

And I'm tired of people saying that a camera shouldn't be disregarded because shitty video. If your target is only photograph, take the video of the camera and lower the price. But if you add a function, you try to be at least usable. I saw some videos with X-T1 and some Sony's point-and-shoot have better video. Such a shame!

0 upvotes
jambalawa
By jambalawa (5 months ago)

Video is a consideration sure.. but the "P" in "dpreview.com" stands for "photo".

2 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

By the way, I've uploaded some examples I've created using the X-T1 with a Metabones speed booster and Contax Zeiss lenses. All images in this gallery processed with Photoninja

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1869916898/albums/x-t1-metabones-speedbooster-contax-zeiss

4 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Good job!

3 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (5 months ago)

Gotta lurve a "discrete shutter noise"

0 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (5 months ago)

Funny how that's on the Pro list for the X-T1 but not on the list for the K-3...

4 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (5 months ago)

Yes, it would have been even better if it had a 'discreet' shutter sound.

0 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (5 months ago)

This is a nice camera. However, a score of 84 is absurd.

19 upvotes
Throttle
By Throttle (5 months ago)

Very true the pros on the review are praising its image quality low and high iso along with its evf and focusing being impressive all round with cons being small buttons ( its a csc ?) spongy d-pad and video not the best but "imo" its more of a gimmick a video feature on a camera ?

The 84 was a big surprise after reading all the praise of the camera in the review :-S

2 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (5 months ago)

Can't argue with that kind of logic.

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Yup, it should have gotten a score of 94.
The camera is near perfect. But whiners like you will never get why this camera deserves the points it got.

7 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (5 months ago)

I plan on getting one, probably in June. I handled one at a camera shop about a month ago. It's nice, and its compactness is its best feature. However, it has several, you might even say many, areas of awkwardness. The positives are all exaggerated. It may be a comparatively nice EVF, but it's still an EVF with all its faults. Ergonomics are awkward - buttons and dials too small, hard to actuate, poor tactile feedback. Menus are terrible. Image quality is good, but not the best.

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (5 months ago)

I was surprised to see that this camera produces sharper images than a Nikon D4s in some ways (the type just above the middle in the quality comparison photos). In some things, such as the colored paint tubes, there seems more sharpness in the photos from the Nikon D4s, but in other places, such as the measurement lines on the right, (the area where it says 32 and 30 shows sharper from this camera than any other 16 megapixel camera I compared to).

3 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (5 months ago)

Is anyone else reminded of the Nikon D1 when they look at this camera?

I wonder if it sparks the same revolution and dislodge the major players like the D1 did.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Yabokie I think your just jealous that your favourite brand does not make that 56mm f1.2.

5 upvotes
Cameracist
By Cameracist (5 months ago)

But the 56mm f1.2 should not be so expensive! I calculated the surface area of glass and the aperture diameter and that is the best (and only) guideline to calculate the price of a lens!!!!!!!
Am i right, Yabokkie?:-D

4 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

I bought this camera the minute it was available. I'm using it exclusively with my collection of Contax Zeiss manual focus lenses with a Metabones Speedbooster. It's THE perfect Contax S2 35mm film body replacement. The Fuji color palette is the most film-like digital I've seen. The Zeiss glass and the Speedbooster focal reducer means no crop factor and truly stunning f/1.0 potential and sharpness you have to see to believe.

I shoot Hasselblad/PhaseOne in the studio. Sold off all my Canon gear a couple years ago in favor of the EM-5 and beautiful Olympus lenses. I loved the m43 system but always felt I was sacrificing image quality for convenience compared to the 5D. Now I've sold off all my m43 gear in favor of the Fuji X-T1 with Speedbooster and I couldn't be happier.

X-T1 plus Contax Zeiss / Speedbooster is even finding a place in my studio work next to the Hasselblad/Phase One. I've never had anything work so beautifully for natural window light portraits! :-)

5 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

BTW: I put raw files through PicturCode's Photoninja. I've compared results of Photoninja, Capture One, and Lightroom. I can get Lightroom and Capture One to feel very good... but Photoninja is in a league of its own... quirky interface, for sure, but exceptionally good image quality.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

Very interesting, thanks. This sounds like a great set up.

0 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

By the way, I've uploaded some examples I've created using the X-T1 with a Metabones speed booster and Contax Zeiss lenses. All images in this gallery processed with Photoninja

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1869916898/albums/x-t1-metabones-speedbooster-contax-zeiss

0 upvotes
chadwads
By chadwads (5 months ago)

Have to kindly disagree. I bought one of the first batches of Metabones speed booster adapters to use with C/Y glass on my X-Pro. I also had a couple of C/Y lenses (50/1.4 and 28/2.8) Leitax converted for use on the Sony A900 so I could easily compare the output shot for shot.

It was crystal clear that the 50/1.4 on speed booster was not resolving close the same level of detail and edge sharpness that the A900 (downscaled) was - especially outside of the center. Fuji's own 35/1.4 demolished the C/Y 50 on the X-Pro.

If you want the Contax experience, the A7 is as close as you can get. Native focal lengths, excellent sensor match down to the 28mm, easy focusing, gobs of resolution and plenty of film like dynamic range. Fuji colors can easily be profiled if that is the look you desire.

2 upvotes
Maverick2007
By Maverick2007 (5 months ago)

I did purchase this camera and returned it for following reasons:

1. Buttons on camera are too small its actually useless.
2. AF is OK and compared to what I am paying its not wroth at all. I can get full frame camera (size aside/portability)
3. Still it produces Water color effect photos. I think Fuji does lot of processing which I hate. I dont see actual picture.
4. Lens line-ups, really bad. Currently they have 55-200 but its too slow lens.

Overall I need to wait atleast 4-5 years to get good quality Fuji camera. I have X100s and I love that as Point and shoot but to replace my Nikon SLR's I doubt it will happen in next 4-5 years.

13 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

1. Being a compact camera, you are obviously going to have less space for buttons and knobs. This gets offset by portability.

2. AF is ok only when compared to mid to high level DSLR's. The X-T1 is as good as it gets in AF performance in the morrorless world

3. Myth. I shoot raw and process in camera, no issues at all. Your issue is probably PC software related.

4. You have a 14mm wide, an 18mm and 23mm all-purpose, a 35mm for portraits and general use, a 56mm dedicated portrait, a 60mm macro (close focus), 18-55mm general use, and other zooms. There are enough lenses to get good shots.

13 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

Plus, you can adapt nearly any manual focus lens ever made and achieve amazingly accurate manual focus using the digital viewfinder.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Maverick2007
By Maverick2007 (5 months ago)

X100s, XPRO1, X-E2, X-E1 is also compact but X-T1 buttons sucks. And those water color are so bad can get true picture. Please note its critics comment and I am not against Fuji. This is my opinion.

3 upvotes
Felts
By Felts (5 months ago)

Maverick...

I cannot believe you complain about the glass... It's wonderful!

And, if you knew that why did you buy the camera in the first place?

3 upvotes
Maverick2007
By Maverick2007 (5 months ago)

I didnt knew before I purchased it. I found tiny buttons as soon as I un-boxed nicely packed X-T1. Well amazed with the weight but useless to me if I am not able to press the buttons.

You cannot charge 1699 for X-T1 + Kit lens for APSC sensor.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Canon 7 was also very expensive. And the kit lens wasn't even close to the fujifilm kit lens.

1 upvote
Bhima78
By Bhima78 (5 months ago)

Disregarding the 2.8-4 lens that comes with that Fuji as just another kit lens is quite misleading. I bet it compares pretty favorably to the Sony Zeiss 24-70 F4 thats $1,000 alone. Hell, I almost bought into the Fuji system because of their included lens but decided to go slightly more portable with m4/3.

0 upvotes
Maverick2007
By Maverick2007 (5 months ago)

I cannot compare this camera with Sony Mirrorless because I never had any. Sony is far behind in SLR Race, I've seen recently Sony was offering great discounts.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (5 months ago)

What's wrong with DPR? How can they post such a superficial review? Did they use a camera for one day and rushed with the review? None of the serious shortcomings are even mentioned:
* wrong (bloody) reds lacking details and color transitions
* cyan ('aqua' according to Adobe) sky color
* wax figure rendition of human faces
* watercolor rendition in landscape shots

20 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Not seeing any these issues in my X-T1. But as noted earlier, I do raw process in camera.

9 upvotes
Maverick2007
By Maverick2007 (5 months ago)

I agree with you. Fuji is doing too much processing and resulting in WAX figure rendition and Water color effects. I really hate these as you cannot get true picture of the subject.

18 upvotes
andywhoa
By andywhoa (5 months ago)

Reds and watercolor* are definitely issues with this camera.

Personally, the smearing (watercoloring) isn't as big of an issue as it is for everyone else. If you were to view foliage on a standard bayer array at 100%, the detail would have artifacts, too. However, those artifacts take on more of a blurring or fuzzy effect. The truth is, both standard bayer arrays and the X-Trans array do not handle tiny details well. They both have a problem. The reason the X-Trans smearing is getting so much grief is because nobody is used to that kind of effect.

3 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (5 months ago)

Raw processing in the camera is a pathetic workflow. Working on a tiny, uncalibrated display with the paltry and unfriendly camera image controls is no substitute for powerful software and a large, accurate display. Fuji needs to play well with others...like all other camera makers it's not capable of developing its own competitive raw processing software. Nor should it try.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

For my own education, can some of you post pictures illustrating the issues you describe? I usually don't have the time or inclination for pixel peeping, but this sounds interesting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

People complaining about the water color effect have no clue how to convert x-trans images.

Thats why they complain. They are nothing more then amateur JPEG shooters - thinking in that the camera makes you a better photographer instead of learning the the technique.

3 upvotes
Jinks81
By Jinks81 (5 months ago)

'They are nothing more then amateur JPEG shooters.'

Are people supposed to be insulted by this? I didn't know this camera is for a 'pro RAW shooter' (LOL) such as yourself.

2 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (5 months ago)

All of the above can be solved with raw processing.

1 upvote
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

I will admit, I like this camera a lot. I have been shooting with it almost exclusively the past 6 weeks.

It looks and feels great in the hands. It has most of what I value in a camera, and very little of what I don't.

Here is my main problem so far....I have been carrying it with me on most outings due to size. So in the end I have been shooting more and more often. BUT it threw my workflow for a spin. I used to be more organized. I used to shoot - raw process in a PC - archive and share. Nowadays I shoot - raw process (in camera) - wifi transfer to phone - share. Result: falling behind on archiving.

I guess one could look at this from a different angle...I have been having too much fun shooting, that everything else became secondary in importance.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (5 months ago)

The Nikon D700 was the last camera I truly enjoyed and felt content to keep for 3 years (instead of upgrading too often). Ever since I sold my D700 a few years ago, I've been wandering in the photographic wilderness looking for the next D700 to satisfy me. Several mirrorless/CSC cameras later and even a D600 later, I think someone has finally released a camera I can be content with for the next couple years. The X-T1 of course. The more I use it, the more I love it. I have the E-M1 also, but I'm debating selling it, even though I love the camera. Especially the body and it's features/functions (like the 5 axis IBIS and touch screen). Anyone that says there's no difference between the image quality of the X-T1 and E-M1 needs to have their eyes checked. There absolutely is a difference (noticeable), even at base ISO, if you feel like pixel peeping. The X-T1 files are crystal clear and sharp at base ISO. Emphasis on crystal clear. Wow...the files are very impressive to me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
cedano
By cedano (5 months ago)

I sale my D700 and some huge glasses (16-35, 24-70, 80,200, 50 1.4) to get this with 8, 14, 23, 56, sometimes i love how great is the IQ, but i realllllly miss my amazing d700, more easy to use, great af, amazing colors, beautiful skin tones, build like a rock.

I´m giving a chance to the XT1, i´m going to try landscapes, nightshots, sports, portraits and every possible test but to me xt1 is like a complement to d700 but not a replacement.

2 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (5 months ago)

I wonder if there will be follow-up to this model, like an X-T1 "Lite" similar to the OM-D E-M10.

0 upvotes
Felts
By Felts (5 months ago)

Errr, XM1?? Even XE-1 or 2...

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Uhm the xm-1 has no viewfinder. The xe-1 has a utterly crap LCD screen.
The xe-2 is very good but more expensive. So no Fuji has no real competitor to the em10. Sony has a very good one though with the a6000.

1 upvote
Timbukto
By Timbukto (5 months ago)

It is really annoying to have to read between the lines all the time in regards to autofocus. I feel like I learned just as much about the D7100 + 58 1.4 AF performance as the XT-1's. And now that combination is used to represent the whole of DSLR PDAF? How did a $1500+ lens score an 84% rating if it can't focus...I guess I should take it literally when the magic of the 58 1.4 is truly its OUT OF FOCUS performance? And the D7100 probably scored gold and got a great rating as well.

Less random anecdotes about how certain combinations of PDAF happens to work on a given day, and more STRINGENT findings on AF in general please?
Besides this complaint, good review and good job Fuji for what looks to be great AF! However given the severely anecdotal nature of AF testing, I only have confidence now that the AF is good on the 55-200 on the wide end of zoom. And its particularly good AF after testing the K-3 and the 58 1.4 on the D7100. My 6D however seems to AF fine with 85 1.8.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (5 months ago)

Way to go Fuji!
The lenses I need are still not there, but I am sure there are enough for many making this a great choice.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Like fast zooms? They are coming this year. Can't wait to try them at photokina.

0 upvotes
EJPB
By EJPB (5 months ago)

Hell yeah! Fuji! Good on you guys!
I work in a photography gear store, and the X-T1 flew off the shelves faster than we could put them up.
Truly a beautiful piece of equipment.

6 upvotes
daddyo
By daddyo (5 months ago)

This is a very impressive camera. High ISO output looks excellent and the Auto WB looks very accurate.
However, shutter speed range, flash synch speed, and lens selection will keep me in the m4/3 camp.
Image wise, it seems that there is not a hair's difference between this camera and the E-M1 -- rating them the same seems a pretty accurate assessment.
Kudos to Fuji for a well designed camera.

2 upvotes
Andrew ATM216
By Andrew ATM216 (5 months ago)

I believe this review confirms the many other ones from those who have the camera and used it.

A few of the great features of this camera, which are important to me, are the awesome jpeg out of the camera, and the size and weight being smaller and lighter than a full frame dslr. And due to its smaller size, people dont get so intimidated when they see u taking their picture. Also, I hear that fuji produces superb lenses, which is a big plus as well...

I just hope that fuji somehow in their next release (the x pro 2) would fix the sync speed, so the camera would not b limited to 1/180....which I think it sucks....since u need to have a nd filter when shooting in bright daylight (if u want an f 2.8)....besides this issue, the xt1 looks to b an excellent lightweight camera delivering pro quality, at an affordable price. Thanks fuji.

4 upvotes
Marcos Villaroman
By Marcos Villaroman (5 months ago)

When it comes to Fuji-X, I totally disagree that its JPEG "is like digital Polaroid". It's more likely on the Fuji-X that the OOC JPEG will be very usable, requiring very little tweaking. I resort to using the RAWs a lot less than with any other camera I own.

2 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

yabokkie, tell that to a wedding photographer who shoots 3k-5k pictures per week.

I don't know who or when this myth got started regarding JPEG being way inferior vs. RAW IQ. The professionals I know are very economical about their work. I don't know a professional who likes to spend hours tweaking photographs in a computer.

In my own personal experience, (shootting mostly RAW), when I find myself spending too much time tweaking photos in a computer is because I did a sloppy job shooting (not always the case, but usually).

At some point, photography stops being photography and becomes graphic design. Nothing woring with either, just two very different things.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
cedano
By cedano (5 months ago)

the sync speed works up to 1/250 llok this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3650418

2 upvotes
gerard boulanger
By gerard boulanger (5 months ago)

I was surprised to see a very DR range between X-Pro 1 and X-T1, about 2 stops...

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (5 months ago)

Yes, and clipping shadows in X-T1 isn't a good thing.

1 upvote
exdeejjjaaaa
By exdeejjjaaaa (5 months ago)

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1

miserable performance

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Still the X-T1 performs better in real life then my D800 - Rara how come?
The graphs may be theoretically correct (if not flawed) because in real world situations it works actually really good.

But then again I am not a Fuji troll ;)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (5 months ago)

JPEG DR is not really DR. It's just the JPEG tone curve. RAW files are the same for all Xtrans cameras. Which means high levels of black recovery...

1 upvote
AKH
By AKH (5 months ago)

Hmm. this is a camera I'm potentially interested in. It looks really great, but I'm sorry to say that the image gallery does not in anyway reflect the high Gold Medal rating - it actually cooled my interest in this camera considerably.

9 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (5 months ago)

All Fuji cameras need bit of special treatment if you want best out of it. Certainly not ACR. :D (RAW is needed tho)

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (5 months ago)

After a brief love affair with the X100s (too slow to do ANYTHING) I have to say that the JPEGs out of camera from Fuji are the best I've ever seen. I usually shot Raw + JPEG and ended up keeping the JPEG because it was just so awesome. I've never seen such colors from any other manufacturer.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
ryan2007
By ryan2007 (5 months ago)

The Dpreview image gallery is not a great source to reflect the ability of any camera. In addition, you have manual control over Dynamic Range (all Fuji X cameras) that directly affects ISO, they are tied together especially if you use AUTO options. You also have the metering pattern, film simulation mode that equates to the Fuji E-6 (slide film) You best first step is to go to the Fuji web site and download the owners manual. Editorial Reviews are only so good and should Never be the sole basis on how a camera or anything finally decided.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (5 months ago)

Very often the DPR gallery speaks better than their reviews.

0 upvotes
REDred Photo
By REDred Photo (5 months ago)

If you're interested in seeing a bit more of this sensor's potential, I've uploaded some examples I've created using the X-T1 with a Metabones speed booster and Contax Zeiss lenses. All images in this gallery processed with Photoninja

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1869916898/albums/x-t1-metabones-speedbooster-contax-zeiss

2 upvotes
exdeejjjaaaa
By exdeejjjaaaa (5 months ago)

this is what Fuji sensor actually worth = http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1

0 upvotes
AKH
By AKH (5 months ago)

Thanks "REDred Photo" your images look very good.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (5 months ago)

DPR reviews the flagship cams from Oly, Fuji, Pana, Sony.. but, ignores the best from Nikon and Canon. This has the effect of making things like the EM1/XT1 look better than they are.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (5 months ago)

Not sure there is point in reviewing them. Almost everyone knows what D4s can or cant do. Others are same case. Just another dSLR with bit off new fluff which does mostly same job as old dSLR (not that D4 is particulary old).

7 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Whats wrong with you Jogger?

How many DSLR's have been introduced this year already by Canon and Nikon?

It doesn't make sense for DPreview to review camera's that are years old....

8 upvotes
pew pew
By pew pew (5 months ago)

I swear I saw a review of the nikon 610 with gold 87% :O which is almost a repackaged nikon 600 that also got reviewed.

2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

Lacks OVF and top lcd. Cons in my book.

7 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (5 months ago)

hardly. Use a new one and you will see why they are pluses in all the reviews. I wouldn't go back.

1 upvote
Matz03
By Matz03 (5 months ago)

no film rewind either

49 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (5 months ago)

With dials you don't need top lcd you "brainiac" that's the whole point of those dials.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Oly Canikon
By Oly Canikon (5 months ago)

What can a top LCD do that a rear one can't?

I have cameras with and without. I just find the top LCD a nuisance especially when using the camera on a tripod.

Fortunately the newer cameras will display the top LCD info on the back, making the top LCD totally redundant but at least it is no longer a hindrance.

3 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

I give you OVF.

Top LCD's typically display: a ISO, b. SS, c. Aperture, d. Metering, e. focus mode. You have all of that information in hardware controls.

That is the beauty of the X-T1...it has what is needed, and lacks gimmicks/fluff

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

It's on top so you don't have to tilt your camera. It uses less power and it doesn't interfere with your eye when looking through VF. It also works faster than dedicated dials. Less dedicated dials make for a sleeker camera. Also it you can still read it of easily in darker conditions.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
T3
By T3 (5 months ago)

D1N0, there are a gazillion cameras out there that have OVF's and top LCDs. Not *every* camera has to fit the same exact mold. Something tells me that D1N0 is the kind of ultra-conservative narrow-minded person who hates *anything* that deviates from his very, very, very narrow idea of what is he thinks is normal. Maybe you should open up your mind to a bit more variety in the world.

I've been an OVF user all my photographic life, but I also use mirrorless now, and I've really grown to appreciate the advantages of EVF. EVF's just do a lot of things that OVF's can't do, like showing you real-time exposure preview, focus magnification, focus peaking, in-viewfinder image review, in-viewfinder histogram, shooting video while using the viewfinder, as well as the ability to give you a very large viewfinder (like FF large) regardless of your sensor size. These days when I go back to using my DSLRs, their OVF's seem so primitive and lacking in features in comparison to EVF.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (5 months ago)

T3,

So because another person values different technical features than you do, you feel entitled to call them a "ultra-conservative narrow-minded person who hates *anything* that deviates from his very, very, very narrow idea of what is he thinks is normal"?

I don't know what's wrong with you, but you should probably get yourself checked out.

While the newer EVF cameras can certainly get it done, I've still not seen one that I prefer over a decent-to-good OVF...and while the lack of a top LCD isn't a deal breaker for me, it's certainly a feature I use a lot on my current camera, and I'm sure I'd miss it on a replacement.

Not sure why you're so defensive and unable to see how someone else might have a different viewpoint, but you're fairly typical among DPR commenters, and it's kind of sad.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (5 months ago)

@hydrospanner - no, I'm just suggesting that people open their minds and eyes beyond the status quo (in this case, regarding OVF and top LCD). As I said, there are a gazillion cameras with OVF's and top LCDs. It's nice to have options that break from this mold.

I remember when the iPhone came out, and there was a cacophony of people who dissed it for not having a physical keyboard. Well, at the time, there were plenty of phones with physical keyboards. We really didn't need yet another one. Thankfully, the iPhone was a product that chose to break from the mold. Likewise, I like seeing the same thing with cameras. Some people are just too set in their ways, too narrow in their perspective, too concerned about wanting the same thing over and over again. Of course, I understand that there is a comfort in familiarity. But there's also a time and place for having something different-- for those of us who are more open minded and more open to variety.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

@ T3 thank you very much your last name must be Putin Different opinion not allowed. send the fsb after me please.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
1 upvote
T3
By T3 (5 months ago)

@D1N0- Haha, it's you who's the one against a difference in opinion! Don't you see, Fuji has made a "different" camera than what you narrowly define ("in my "book") as acceptable, and you see this deviation as a "con". So it's you who is against Fuji's "difference of opinion" of what a camera can be. As for me, I appreciate and applaud Fuji's "difference of opinion" from the status quo. Yes, Fuji could have added *yet another* DSLR to the market, with an OVF and top LCD, and you'd be perfectly happy with them falling lock-step in line with your Putin-approved cookie-cutter "in my book" ideology of what a camera should be. Me, I'm all for variety, which means I'm all for manufacturers throwing their "difference of opinion" into the marketplace. I see these different paths as being "pros", not "cons". It's the essence of a free, diverse market, and great for innovation! Sometimes, it's great to break from the mold. That's how we got things like today's smartphones and tablets.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (5 months ago)

I liked having the top LCD in the days before the EVF. I could put the camera down to my stomach, look at it quickly and then know what the camera was set at. I don't need to put it down at all now because it's all in the EVF. Technology has improved on something that was nice, but now it's better yet.

0 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (5 months ago)

T3,

That's the biggest load of BS I've seen on this site in a few days (which sadly, is saying something). I love how in two sentences of someone chiming in that the *lack* of two features were cons, nothing more, you've managed to spin this great delusion about their inferiority as a person, conveniently setting yourself up as the opposite to all of that.

Of course, you'll hear none of the advantages of either feature (funny that for things that are so commonplace, people actually like their inclusion!), because you're perfectly willing to dismiss them out of hand if it supports your rhetoric to do so.

It's just too bad we all can't be as "open minded" as you, totally without opinions, preferences, or perspectives...other than those specifically aimed at belittling those around us.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (5 months ago)

The point is the camera doesn't lack those features - it offers alternatives. Your POV is showing by saying it is lacking them...

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

So T3 why do none of the Pro's shoot with camera's that lack a top-lcd and ovf. There aren't even any pro camera's with an evf or without a top lcd. Hence they are pro features with proven advantages. Dedicated dials are from the analogue age an now they are a fad for people who have time to fiddle with them. I see them as a con or toy (i wouldn't want them on my primary camera). I am not narrow minded, I have preferences. It is you who need to attack people who do not walk in line with the current fad. That is narrow minded. I am not against improvements, but I am not willing to give up establisched advantages for that. I want a Hybrid VF in DSLR. So I can have the best of both worlds.

0 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (5 months ago)

>>So T3 why do none of the Pro's shoot with camera's that lack a top-lcd and ovf. There aren't even any pro camera's with an evf or without a top lcd.<<

You define pro based upon the equipment? Brand nor camera model makes a professional photographer. Neither does EVF, OVF, or top LCD. You are showing your bias, or as other say, narrow minded ness.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

You are not making a point and are just trying to frame me. Bryceyboy. I define pro by people making their money with photography. Most of them use Canon and Nikon full frame dslrs.

0 upvotes
Jon Holstein
By Jon Holstein (4 months ago)

@D1N0
It's simply not true, that most professional users, use Full Frame cameras. And many that do, often has a second body, that does not have the top LCD, anyhow.
So top LCD, is not a deciding factor for professionals in general, even if there are those, that think it is. Keep in mind, just bacause someone that uses something that is there, does not make it a deciding factor. Nikon happens to put LCDs on most cameras in their "pro" category, so those buying those cameras get them whether or not they chose to.

And although optical viewfinder has some benefits, so does this electronic viewfinder. In low light, it's better than OVF, that was not always the case with EVF. It has quick enough update, to be usefull for continous shooting. And the update frequency is quick enough not to bother you when panning.

They may be cons in your book, but they should not be on this review.

0 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (4 months ago)

@ D1N0
Again, you really don't know much. You state something without reason. By your logic professionals don't use Macs because most computers sold are PC's. We both know that either will work for the job and you can choose.
It's the exact same thing for cameras too. Brand does not define professional. A Pro can choose what works for them and they deliver. That's the bottom line.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

@brycesteiner you really are a wannabee fanboy idiot aren't you

1 upvote
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (4 months ago)

"A Pro can choose what works for them..."

True...and the vast majority choose Canon and Nikon. Funny how that works.

0 upvotes
Jim Salvas
By Jim Salvas (5 months ago)

I think it's fitting that DPR gave this the exact same rating as the EM1. These are closely matched competitors, with about the same amount of pluses and minuses on both sides. It boils down to personal preference between two excellent cameras. This sort of competition should be good for both camps.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

You Sir are spot on. While the EM1 is more responsive, I find it more suited for landscapes and things. The X-T1 has great looks and body design. About half of what I shoot are people, so I chose the X-T1 because I feel it excells in that area over the EM1.

3 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (5 months ago)

How can you add up pluses and minuses and expect to get a reasonable score which is exactly the same as another camera?
There are so many factors and preferences and opinions.
To my mind the only thing that is certain- again- is that if out of the last 10 reviews 8 are gold and 2 silver, there is something wrong with the system. Where is the average DSLR? Where the below than average?

2 upvotes
Michael49
By Michael49 (5 months ago)

There's nothing wrong with that - it simply that there are many fantastic offerings at the moment!

0 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (5 months ago)

First, this has been the case since forever, only before it was called highl recommended.
Secondly, if the average is very high, the measuring system has to be very strict and picky. No matter how good a camera is, an award should by definition be limited to a certain percentage.

0 upvotes
AlexRuiz
By AlexRuiz (5 months ago)

Markol, DPR is only reviewing the upper echelon camearas. The vast majority of reviews are for cameras around $1K and higher. So it is a small percentage of all cameras. After all, who wants to see a review for a grossly underwhelming camera?

2 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (5 months ago)

Even if that were the case, what is the value of an award that every camera in a given class gets? The standard for say a high end mirrorless camera should simply be higher than for an entry class model. And the top 3 in each class should get an Award, simple as that.

0 upvotes
Jon Holstein
By Jon Holstein (4 months ago)

@Markol
Well, no, the point of those rewards are to guide buyers. And if a camera is simply so good that there is nothing much to complain about, it's good enough.
It's not a race where there can only be one with a gold award. And those reviews that aboslutely picks a winner, and a best buy, arent really helping buyers, since they make some offering sound worse then they are, cause they missed out on a reward. Thats much less fair.

0 upvotes
FriendlyWalkabout
By FriendlyWalkabout (5 months ago)

Why does this xt1 rate higher than my branded camera? Dpreview is soooo biased!

25 upvotes
FriendlyWalkabout
By FriendlyWalkabout (5 months ago)

Deleted

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (5 months ago)

Love it.

Pentax whiners inbound.

1 upvote
Total comments: 581
1234