Spoken like a true amateur. If one does evening event and investigative journalism for a living, namely in the trenches photography which is definitely pro, then ISO 6400 and higher is the norm. Think outside the box please.

Yes I do. As much as I love the xt10 I bought the xpro2 and can't put it down. It is faster in every way and is simply pleasure to shoot with. So much so that I take it everywhere. The xt10 feels sluggish in comparison and it isn't a sluggish camera. So it just sits now. I don't miss my Sony FF at all.

The image quality is equal. All the Fuji lenses are faster so I can shoot at lower ISO settings compared to my A7. Even at 6400 I like the noise grain and color better on the Fuji.

I find the Fuji controls on both bodies much nicer and handling is better than any camera I have used before. I would say my A7 was a little fast at AF than the xt10 but the xpro2 feels a lot faster. It focuses better in low than the A7 as well.

The Fuji lenses make the system though. They are top notch. Fast, sharp, well built, Aperture ring on them, small, and priced well for what you get.

I don't miss my sony system at all. But the X-Pro2 is really the camera body I would recommend.

I have had the X-T10 for about a week now and compared the pics to my E-M5 II and Lumix GX8 and have found the X-T10 output to be fantastic.

I've noticed none of the so-called "waxiness" issues that have been mentioned with the one exception of shooting the Queen Elizabeth exhibit at the local wax museum.

i have the olympus em1 and just purchased the X-T10, i know this will probably upset the diehard oly fans but this camera takes the wee wee out of a £600 more expensive camera. it performs better in every way i have owned the fony a6000 and that was in my opinion very similar to this for photos as i don't do video. but the build of the fony was cheap. the thing is its just your opinion that matters, if you are happy with your camera then thats the one for you. and I'm happy with the X-T10.

The wax thing is actually the fault of adobe not fuji. Adobe are having issues with non bayer sensors. Google irident developer vs lightroom.

If you do not crop your photos you can print up to 65 x 44 cm, in a good quality. My largest print was a poster in high quality 150 x 50 cm to get the required number of pixels I did use 5 photos.

couldn't of put it better. i think people don't buy cameras to take pictures nowadays, it appears they just join some kind of brand cult. personally i buy what i think is the best tool for the job, and at present thats the fuji x-t10.

I often use iso 6400. Im shooting indoor sports in bad light and a party tommorrow.
I dont need more than 1 second burst at 8fps for sports so no complaint there.
Video? Good enough for the novice for family moments.
Touch screen? Would be nice for selecting the focus point but not a must have for me.
16mp? Enough for me, I prefer a better sensor (less noise) with the same megapixels.

Matt,

On paper it looks that way, and yes the Fuji looks more hip. But after taking a few pictures with the X-T10 and the A6000, you quickly find out that the Fuji is superior and is more then a cool thing to hang around your neck. The image quality difference is extremely easy to see (colors, noise, sharpness) and the X-T10 wins every time (even without have to pixel peep). Hands down, Fuji wins the image contest.

For me, all camera JPEGS have been dead since the introduction of RAW. The only time I use a JPEG, is when I export an edited image from my computer. Most people that are serious about resolution, noise reduction and dynamic range shoot RAW anyway. I haven't found any mirrorless competitor in the same price range that delivers image quality as good as the Fuji X series.

I've both Sony A7ii and Fuji X-A1 + M1,,,A7 jpegs are full of fine details, whereas fuji ones are smeared...but raws are very good of course.

FWIW It's funny but not surprising that tech support considers this a common complaint. You're certainly not the first person I've heard complain about this, and I bet it's a common conclusion for people with decades of DSLR experience.

For people just getting started with ILC though there's no complaints, because the behavior is natural and it's "chimping" that is the strange choice, driven by limitations of past cameras (i.e. uselessness of EVF tech until recently) not by the ergonomics of photography, which of course are being invented as we go, since there was no instant-review on film camreas ;)

I agree and even as I mentioned the difference from DSLR I was thinking maybe I'd adjust. I guess it's just more difficult for those of us using both mirror less and DSLR. Maybe I'll try increasing the review time.

:)

If anything I'd recommend you keep it nice and short. Part of the transition is getting used to the fact that you ALWAYS "chimp" with the EVF, rather than deciding for each photo whether to look at the LCD like you would on a DSLR.

The longer the review time the more disruptive it becomes, and the less interesting since 90% of what you see during review is the same as what you saw before firing the shutter.

For me the goal is to habituate to getting all the exposure right before firing (obviously) then quickly assessing critical sharpness/timing (facial expressions) during the short review period, then switching into full playback mode on the LCD when I need to zoom in to check focus or review multiple images.

Good luck!

I did NOT say FUJI needs more MP, but the sensor is AGED.

There's something embarrassing about knowing that my brand new camera can't actually take better pictures than my out of date X-E1, it just feels wrong.

On the other hand I loved the photos from my X-E1, and all my complaints were about ergonomics and AF and missing features like Wifi, electronic shutter etc.

I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.

When they have something that behaves like a 5DIII I will want it desperately, until then I'm happy with the old sensor wrapped in a modern chassis.

>>> "but the sensor is also one of the best",

FUJI does not make APS-C sensor. All Fuji uses same SONY sensor as SONY used for NEX6, if I'm not mistaken.

>>>"I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.".

SONY replaced NEX6's sensor for a6000 is not for " 2% improvement to noise" but AF performance:

- Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points

- Phase detection covers a much larger area.

- better AF tracking performance (with new engine) - 11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking

FUJI is too old and dated comparing to SONY.

Ming Thein made the same observation concerning the 16mp and 24mp sensors. He found the older, lower-res model to provide superior IQ in color reproduction and reaching parity in detail retrieval due to less mushiness from noise...

I mean, even DXO acknowledges the old sensor can achieve superior results. See scores for the D7000 vs. the 5 year newer A6000.

Mike FL, I do not understand where you read that Fuji's sensor is the Sony NEX sensor. Fuji may outsource who makes their sensor, but that doesn't mean the two systems use the same sensor.

The sensor has undergone a recent "modernization in fabrication techniques" which means that the specifications stayed about the same but the construction uses improved techniques for small improvements. So no, it is not the same sensor, just the same megapixels.

Also, note that improvements to autofocus occur due to improvements in the focusing motor, the algorithms, or the processing speed... but not due to changes in the sensor. The sensor only supplies input data.

Now, you could painfully argue that a better low-light sensor would perform AF better in low light... but then you can argue that the f/stop changes how well a camera can autofocus and it just gets yuckier from there.

(Why dxo doesn't test Fuji)
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52408104

that's plain biased...fuji jpegs are awful with agressive nr..no fine detail, dead at %100 view.

Your comment sounds biased against. My experience is that the JPGs are great.

There's no reason to be so strict about this rule. They do have video functions and they do take video, so it's only fair for people to assume that the function works properly. Unfortunately "works properly" is relative and many feel the Fuji video system is so terrible it doesn't even compete with P&S video.

Every Fuji review needs a warning that the video sucks and a demo of the "jaggies" and moiré that are so easily triggered by the sensor design/mediocre programming. I think in this case they were fair in the conclusion: It's a big problem, but not everyone cares, so decide based on that.

Personally I love my Fuji cameras and don't want to switch, but would REALLY like to be able to use the video features without embarassing myself. I'd like to be able to experiment with video without buying a second system.

I do extensive video recording only three times in the year, just for local oriental dancers, and after the switch to Fuji I had to do it with the X-T1 (I´m not crazy enough to buy a specialized capable camera for such a rare occasion). The general video quality is really not good, with lots of flaws, but the system with full manual video controls, and the great optics, is not a total mess. When carefully set up, it can be used and the results are not a real tragedy - and in the end, those people who are interested on the clips are no video professionals, and are very satisfied with the results. Of course I would not use it to make a movie :-) but there is some potential and I really hope that the future sensor will be much more able in video.

I was grateful for the video ability of my Fuji X30 when I spontaneously decided to do video recording at the funeral of jazz legend Ornette Coleman a few months ago. I had no plans to do any video at all but the music was so great I ended up taping every performance. Who cares about the quality when I was able to capture a once-in-a-lifetime event like this. Here is the first one I did and the rest are all up on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3fxw3MLcYA

The X30 does use the X-Trans array, so it may not be a better choice for video.

As for the OP's suggestion that video capabilities should be disregarded in reviews of Fuji cameras, I think that's absurd. Not many people might buy a Fuji to shoot video, but the feature is there, so some people will want to use it once in a while. And if Fuji cameras were great for shooting video, then of course a lot of people would buy them for that purpose.

Revenant you are right about the X30! Sorry I didn't think they used X-trans on the 2/3 sensors, must have been thinking of the X100 or something.

Also agree that saying "people don't buy Fuji for video" doesn't mean it's not important, it just means Fuji is losing tons of customers who rightly know that Fuji cameras are useless for video. If they were at least decent at it people would be emotionally torn rather than quickly decided against.

The main problem with the X30 video is not the quality (which is much better than X20, but still not more than average), but the exposure inconsistence and autofocus unreliability. The only solution is to use manual focus, and also set all parameters manually, then you can be sure that the camera settings stay the same while recording. When something automatic is set, every little change of composition causes (not always, but mostly) a wild autofocus or exposure change. Of course it is possible to control the video manually, but even then the use is not easy - but in a important moment, everyone would be glad about it.

I think it is totally appropriate since most folks by a system to do both since it is offered on almost all cameras now. Buyers should be warned of the limitations of the camera as far as video goes. Kind of like Nikon not allowing aperture control during shooting. It can seriously limit functionality.

People can "like" your Fuji confirmation bias till the cows come home. Fact is that other cameras give you true raw, the data from the sensor as is. Fuji does not. They apply a bunch of noise reduction to fool people into thinking that their camera has a better noise performance. It is called cheating!

No need to get your nickers in a knot, it was a bit of tongue and cheek...... and yes I am bias towards Fujifilm, nowadays I predominately shoot jpeg, and I've yet to see a camera (apart from Olympus) that renders out of camera jpegs as good as Fuji, but not all is fantastic with Fuji, when it comes to video they're not so good, and to be blunt they're crap, probably the worst on the market, thats why I bought a Panasonic FZ1000, and if I still wanted to play around with RAW files then I'd probably would have kept my Nikon D700 or I would have invested in an upgrade, but I really couldnt be fussed about with RAW anymore, I'm content with Fuji jpegs, all I'm wishing for now is they get their video up to par with other makes

When a camera takes better pictures by default I don't call it cheating I call it better pictures.

FF cameras aren't cheating by having a bigger sensor, pro cameras aren't cheating by offering RAW and Fuji isn't cheating by pre-optimizing their RAW files. All are just ways of improving the images and making life for the photographer easy.

I love my RAW files cooked! Now that Lightroom supports the film simulations it's even better, I can start from a fully flavored image and still have the ability to edit it and change the colors/expsure all day long.

Fujifilm and Olympus are using ISO SOS (standard output sensitivity), Nikon and Canon use ISO REI (recommended exposure index), which is actually more arbitrary than SOS.

However, even the more standardized SOS (18% average saturation in an sRGB JPEG shot with average metering w/o exposure compensation) allows a variation of ± 1/3 EV, so two different cameras using ISO SOS could actually render exposures with brightness levels that differ 2/3 EV from each other and yet still both be considered accurate.

MikeFL: Fuji cheats, systematically across multiple camera models and several production years, according to DPReview (and others).

DPReview has only reported a single Olympus camera with anomalous ISO, on the other hand, and no one else I'm aware of has credibly corroborated that result, leading many to suspect its accuracy.

Get your facts straight next time.

flysurfer: while you're right about who's using which techniques to set exposure index (at least the last time I checked), the issue with Fuji is that, according to DPReview and others, Fuji has systematically fallen outside of the 1/3 EV range of allowed leeway (under exposing, natch) with multiple camera models over a span of multiple years.

That's not the case with Olympus.

texinwien;

"Get your facts straight next time"? as far as I can see:

1. You do not own different cameras including Fuji and Oly

2. You do not know how to look/check the ISO variation across multiple cameras by you own eye from your cameras or Lab results from others including DPR

3. you do not know camera ISO performance as all

4. All of above.

Pick one please. You can do that much I think. texinwien!

Yes?

Oh no, Fuji and Olympus "cheat" on their ISOs. Let the tooth gnashing and self-flagellation begin. Photography is no longer possible; what is the world coming to?

And? Photography is no longer possible, now?

It's 2015 - get over it.
The EVF in the X-T1 and X-T10 are really good.

If OVF is a must, there's the XPro1 and X100 series, and maybe the XPro2 will have a really nice improved hybrid OVF/EVF.

looking forward to see what they do with the next XPro
:)

Buy a DLSR then...

I tested out an XPro1 a couple of years ago. It has a magical feature where it can switch between EVF and OVF. I started out as believing in the OVF as a must-have and the EVF as a novelty, but over the two weeks I was using it, I found myself using the EVF more and more.

And the EVF in the X-T10 is much more modern and better on all counts — let alone the even larger one on the X—T1.

So, recently, I switched to the X-T10 as kind of a longer-term experiment. I'm coming from the very nice 100%-view pentaprism in Pentax cameras, and there are many things I miss from the old system and areas where Pentax definitely does things better (balanced by things where Fujifilm does other things better, of course). But the viewfinder just plain isn't something I even think about being different. The EVF is perfectly fine.

Most of the optical finders I have looked through on lower-end DSLRs are really grim, especially on mass-market Rebel-grade cameras. Many of these do not even use a prism design. Compare with a Nikon F3, F4, or Leicaflex to see a bright finder. So why is there a continuing obsession with optical finders?

Yes, I was surprised at the silver award as well, and I use a Sony A6000. Granted, I love my camera and don't see myself selling it off just yet (unless they bring back a triple dial successor to the Nex-7).

But having had my hands on the X100S and X20, I realize that despite Fuji's firmware interface being somewhat irksome, the actual shooting experience is indeed quite a treat. This is especially so if you're a manual shooter, right down to the focusing. It's not quite there yet, but it's about the closest equivalent of shooting with a manual film SLR on a digital system.

What's up with the raw colors? is that a ACR issue? It looks like the colors are desaturated

It's not ugly, that's just an overreaction because it's kind of "square" compared to the other Fuji cameras. In person it's just as beautiful as the original X-E1, and I get even more compliments on my X-T10 than I did on my X-E1.

It's wonderful having a cute/neat camera, it makes people happy and curious and I get better pictures of them because of their good attitude.

The X-T10 actually does have film simulation bracketing almost exactly like this. It can only do three different options, though, not five. And unfortunately, this mode disables RAW.

I do wish the in-camera RAW processing had as many options as Pentax's does — I was surprised to read the praise for it in this review, because it's comparatively very limited. Pentax also immediately updates a preview (which fills the LCD, rather than being a very tiny thumbnail) as you change settings, not only after you make all of your choices. I hope Fujifilm implements this in a future version.

OH, there is lots of raw processing. Its raw is cooked.

@123Mike — I said raw processing _options_. :)

It seems that it is not possible to turn off all the raw processing options. It's cheating left and right to fool people into thinking it's better than other cameras. Only people looking for confirmation bias will fall for it.

oh come on- we want high quality glass but don't want to pay for it- thats whinging!

Those small lenses ARE very reasonably priced!

so buy panasonic
;)

Please don't look at Leica lens prices!

I think BarnET has a point about the over-priced nature of Fuji lenses. Nothing to do with their worth or quality (I have 7 of them), but more the fact that they often do crazy deals or reductions on them. For example I picked up an X-M1, 16-50, 50-230 AND 27 for £450. Sold most on ebay, meaning I paid £50 for the 27, which is a long way from it's RRP. I also bought 3 lenses and got £500 back. Clearly some of the lenses could be cheaper if they can afford to do these mad deals (I'm looking at you, 27mm).

Rich what did you do to the shopkeeper?

of course they COULD be cheaper, so could Canon lenses and others.

But I'd rather they made decent money and invested in top notch lenses than turn out a load of mediocre uninspiring glass for a pittance

people don't buy leica cos its CHEAP (or even affordable). Fuji might not be Leica but at least they're making an effort

anyway what are you on about with ebay and the M1 lenses-these ARE cheap lenses, the fact you managed to make a deal on it has nothing to do with it

Chasing the cheap buyers is a loser's game. The volumes Fuji produces are far smaller than others and they see themselves positioned against Canon and Nikon. Thus , by comparison their prices are fair. Panasonic is trying to buy market share and in truth their lenses ARE cheaper to make.

Panasonic is not alone in the m43 system.
They have to compete with Olympus prices too.

Then people are also complaining about m43 lens prices. Saying that becouse they have a smaller image circle they should be cheaper then Dslr lenses.

be aware that Canon and Nikon have very cheap prime lenses in their line-up. Some of them are remarkably good too.
Canon 24mm f2.8 for instance a bargain at 149,-

Now some of those fujifilm lenses are the equiv. to Canon's L glass. And they are worth that premium.
23mm 56mm and 90mm seem to be the best examples.

I looked at the 60mm F2.4 and even tried it. But the AF motor is a problem. Optics are top notch but the F2.4 gives me the same seperation as the mm43 bodies. (identical to the olympus 45mm f1.8.)

That lens is quiet fast and precise. 3 things the 60mm is not. So yeah i would buy a 56mm F2 Hell i would rush to the shop right after the announcement to reserve one. The 27mm is not what i want. It's not fast not great and very expensive. I'd rather stick to my 18-55 all day long then switch it out for that.

LR is not the standard of the industry?
What data can you point to? C1 is popular but I doubt it exceeds installs over LR.

Adobe Lr might not be any official industry standard, but for DAM/RAW-converters, is practically as close as it gets (like it or not).

Capture1 costs 10$/month just like Lightroom, but LR comes with Photoshop AND LR Mobile+hosting. If price is the concern I don't think Lightroom is in big trouble.

You're definitely wrong about the industry if you think LR isn't the standard. Sure it's not the only choice, but there's a whole lot of people who don't want to switch away from it just to try out a new camera system.

That said I am satisfied with the support for Fuji in LR. The problem with your photos is you and your lack of imagination, not the RAW processor.

Sounds like the result of continued cheating to me. That's exactly the behavior we'd expect - chronic underexposure - if Fuji hadn't changed their cheating ways.

DPR: why no word on whether or not Fuji cheats with ISO on this camera as they have systematically done with others in the X line over the past few years?

Which metering mode do you use?

Evaluative. I've seen worse, but the problem is clearly and obviously that the firmware is designed to underexpose and then amplify using the camera's strange DR modes. I think I can see what Fuji were trying to achieve, but I prefer to have accurate metering and set ISO/aperture/speed as appropriate; I hate cameras that try to second guess me!! That said, if you shoot raw, set the DR to 100, ISO 200 (or whatever you need for shutter speed) then the cameras work OK, but you need to review your histogram and compensate...

I don't think it's right to say the images are "underexposed", or that it's an attempt to cheat ISO numbers. The very few people who obsess about those numbers online aren't a big concern; people aren't likely to buy this camera over that value anyway.

Instead, they're part of the film simulation look Fujifilm is going for. They simply choose a lower exposure than you might as the default. The existence of a physical EV compensation dial makes this easy to change if you don't like it — you can leave it dialed up a notch.

I do wish, instead, that they'd made this a tunable parameter of the film simulation modes — not to harp on this too much, but.... Pentax does exactly that (there's a seven-point scale from low-key to high-key).

Hi Matthew,

The main problem here is that the camera manufacturers have agreed up on a standard by which the exposure index should be set. Fuji has, according to DPReview and others, systematically failed to follow that standard in a way that would favor JPEG images from their cameras in terms of image noise when compared cameras from other makers who follow the standard.

If there wasn't a standard, or if Fuji decided to call their ISO something other than 'ISO', thereby making it clear that they were using something other than the ISO standard to set exposure index, things would be fine. But as long as they call it 'ISO' while failing to follow the rules of the standard, 'cheating' seems like a completely fair word to use to characterize what they're doing.