Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review

From the article: "Program shift is unavailable if Auto ISO or Auto DR is set."

I wonder what is the reason for this?

Mar 12, 2013permalink

"File write times have been halved, and the camera can now enter playback to check focus and composition within about two seconds of shooting a single frame."

OMG! What an achievement (for 1947)!

Mar 11, 2013permalink

Seagull67

Had it for weeks: it's a great camera. Feels good in the hand, compact and light enough to carry everywhere, everyday. It's capable of capturing great images when you've set it up to get what you want: it's an easy process. I only shoot and use jpegs: I never post-process anything, it doesn't suit my way of working or aesthetic - I like to get the images straight out of the camera that are perfect for me, and I get them with the XE-1. Now the camera is set up to give me the colour I like I simply use the exposure compensation dial and aperture priority to get what I want. Job done on having a great responsive tool that leaves you free to work out artistically what you think a good photograph is, and how you will take one!....still working on that...this tool helps. Well done Fujifilm.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

yabokkie

does anyone know if there is any good lens to use?

Mar 8, 2013permalink

starwolfy

Isnt' the X-E2 coming soon ?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Dear DPREVIEW, please replace your current here presented JPG images (with NR=+2), with JPG images with OPTIMAL noise reduction (NR) setting (NR=-1 or -2).
More commentators complained about IQ presented here, they saw this is fault of Fuji. But it IS NOT, it is because of not appropriate NR setting.

- Your JPG files have HIGHEST(NR= +2) NR, which removed large part of the fine detail! For this kind of comparison this setting provides WORST detail/noise IQ.

- NR setting you used is not optimal, but also not default (NR=0) setting! I see no reason to provide images with NR=+2, as we see it now.

- the greatest reason why somebody complains Fuji is because it see image with suboptimal settings.

It is not big problem to take your existing RAW files and convert it IN-CAMERA to JPG with optimal NR setting.
I converted your RAW ISO3200 image myself with NR=-2 and I see the difference to your JPG is big.

Mar 5, 2013permalink

zodiacfml

No need. Why serve those who don't understand and has little interest?

Mar 5, 2013permalink

Den Sh

It almost looks as if they want to make Fuji's jpeg images look worse with this.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

http://www.gregorservais.nl/fotografie/

who is interesting for real life pictures with Fuji X cameras:
http://www.tomen.de/category/fuji-x-pro1/sample-images/fashion-photography/

These are from X-PRO1 because there are more images than from XE1, and for XPRO1 are also categorized, for XE1 not. Image quality of XPRO1 and XE1 is the same.
on the web: on the right side (scroll down) you could find categories ( select camera, picture category, ... )

Mar 5, 2013permalink

Camediadude

Yes, it is bristling with tech and features (that many other cameras lack) galore, and most importantly the IQ is THERE, not too much of a debate on that front..

But, from a strictly design and aesthetic standpoint, it just oozes sex appeal!! Makes you want to pick one up and try it out. So from the standpoint alone, they won. I hope they continues to succeed with these formulas, they deserve it I feel.

Mar 5, 2013*permalink

Gregfromholland

Yesterday It was the first time I Picked up the Fuji Xe1 after my travel to Burma.
It was in the evening and I tryed to take some photos from my girlfriend.
We were in the livingroom and I had enough lights on but the fuji really had serious trouble to focus. I would say, it had so much trouble focussing that just for that reason it doens't deserve the gold award. The autofocussing is just not good enough.

Still..despite that I think the image quality makes up for tyhe seriously crappy autofocus, but only slightly.

here are my Fuji XE1 photo's from Burma:

Edited by the way in Photoshop raw, 7.4 with the help of VSco filmpack 03 software.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

WellyNZ

I had the same problem with the X Pro 1. It was a shame because I loved the images I got out of it on the rare occasion I could nail the focus. I'd have been happy to shoot it entirely manually if manual focus on the X Pro 1 was in any way usable.

I've been shooting for 20 years with manual and autofocus cameras, and currently shoot with large format cameras and have never had problems getting consistent sharp images. I realise other people have found focusing the Fuji cameras not to be a problem but I simply didn't get on with it.

In the end, I found someone who had a Leica M6 that wanted to exchange for a Fuji X Pro 1. I'm happy with my Leica, he's happy with his Fuji. I'll wait for the X Pro 2 or 3 when they finally get the focusing system working properly and then I'll come back.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

For XE1 with 18-55/2.8-4.0 zoom:

I HAD AF problems BEFORE.

NOW I almost do NOT have it. I'm very satisfied with AF accuracy, the speed in good light is good, in low light slower but still focusing playing children works reasonably good.

Newest Firmware and own experience after some time makes this difference.
And I mean also in low light, for playing children. I specially tested AF with newest Firmware in low light, lens aperture always wide open = shallow DOF.
When you had problems in low light, then you could easily block AF light by your finger, or I found out that the own zoom lens zoomed near 55mm blocks AF light! ( simply zoom it little less, its usually not big limitation )
Yes focusing XE1 may be tricky, the success depends on more factors: Focus mode (most sensitive is "C" continuous mode, but the focus field is quite large and sometimes could focus on something else as you would like), if "S"=single AF mode then the size of focus field makes big difference.

Mar 5, 2013permalink

In low light if you learn focusing with the camera I would very recommend to use flash. Because taking pictures of moving subjects in low light you could very easy get motion blur. So many people who reported wrong focus had motion blur instead! With flash and time 1/250 you could be almost sure you will not have motion blur and could concentrate to evaluate focus.
I found out the XE1 is able to focus reliable for near objects ( inside room ) in almost absolute dark, if you see almost nothing on your LCD. ....if AF light is not blocked as mentioned above. If you feel already sure to AF focus with the
camera then you could avoid flash.
Flash: I appreciate small inexpensive EF-20. I use it bounced UP to have more natural light.
Focus TRACKING is surely not comparable with DSLR. But also other mirrorless (MILC) if better or worse are still NOT good. To be satisfied with tracking we need to wait for next mirrorless generations.

Mar 5, 2013permalink

for Fuji focusing tips&tricks see also:
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/7683-x-e1-focussing-trick/
http://fujixfiles.blogspot.sk/2012/08/fuji-x-pro-1-af-autofocus-speed-and.html
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/topic/1713-focus-101/#entry19694

Mar 5, 2013permalink

Amateurbob

In a comment to my original post it was asked how one can determine dynamic range from sample pictures. I look at the samples giving particular interest to those with bright areas and shadows. I click on “original” to get the full resolution picture and then copy it to Picture Publisher. I go to tone curve, which I adjust to total black so that every color channel of every pixel is set to a value of 0 except for those that were originally at 255, i.e. blown out. These values remain at 255. One can now see all the areas that are blown out and what color channels are affected. The X-E1 did poorly in my testing of the sample pictures. I had no control in taking the samples, so my testing is for my curiosity only. What I saw may not just reflect dynamic range. The camera may be over exposing, which I suspect it is.

Again: How does setting the X-E1 at DR 200 or DR 400 increase the dynamic range as DP Review shows. What is the real dynamic range of the sensor?

Mar 4, 2013permalink

KariP

Comparing images... in a way strange that people say that RAW images tell the "truth" about IQ better than comparing JPEGs straight from the camera. It is true that Fuji has a better jpeg engine and many usable adjustments - in camera. But RAW conversion tools are also JUST tools that do NOT work equally well for different types of sensors and files.

In DPR tests even the RAW files from Fuji look clearly better than for example OM-D , but slightly - and especially only ISO 3200 and higher looks much better . And - how important is the very high ISO capability? Perhaps it becomes important now when high iso images are really usable.
I'm a happy Canon 7D+G1X shooter - i just decided to order a X-E1 for traveling, walking/biking around (light weight) and some town/street photography. 7D is still unbeatable for action and difficult Speedlite - flash shooting. Fuji looks very tempting after reading several tests...

Mar 4, 2013permalink

zdys

Fuji X-E1, Leica Elmarit 28mm, NX2 Nik Filter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53718360@N04/

Mar 4, 2013permalink

jonte0

Sorry, nut these can be done by almost any PS today.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

zdys

Sorry, I don´t get it. Is there a comma missing or a word too much? Anyway what is your point? That anyone can do the same with some PS - ok, I agree, so what?
X-E1 and a Leica 28mm is as small and sharp as a good image quality travel camera can get. For my opinion. The link was to show my preferences.
Most pictures are shot hyperfocal. Retouching any of the shown pictures was done in less than 60sec. I think someone who is interested in the X-E1, therefore the post, can judge by him/ herself. Instead of naming NX2 and Nik I could also have just said - slight postprocessing, yes.
The X-E1 is a hammer of a camera, check my gear to see the Nikon stuff I will now sell.

Mar 5, 2013*permalink

vesa1tahti

Message n.500: I think Sony NEX 7, Ol. OM-D-EM5 and Fuji X-E1 actually are on the same level.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

Except only E-M5 has fully metal weather sealed body and articulated touch screen, and focuses really fast. NEX-7 is closer, X-E1 is missing a few other things, having smallish screen and lower continuous frame rate.

Mar 11, 2013*permalink

I don't have a, "trained eye" and I'm not a professional. Also as a disclaimer, I do own an OM-D, so maybe I'm just psychologically tricking myself.

But, I keep hearing in professional reviews that the Fuji has the best image quality in it's market. But when I look at the OM-D comparison under raw, I see better colors, more detail and an overall better image up to ISO 800. Then above ISO 800 it seems like the Fuji doesnt resolve anymore detail and just has NR applied that would equal out with applying NR on the OM-D.

Am I crazy or just wrong?

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

vesa1tahti

You are not crazy nor wrong. You are absolutely right. This is what happens with Fuji: they apply strong NR, making the images softer and less noisy. You absolutely can get better IQ with OM-D. When softening the images with Lightroom, they look like photos taken with Fuji. (my bad English, sorry).

Mar 4, 2013permalink

Thanks for the feedback on that. By the way, the Fuji looks like an excellent camera. I think the number one thing it has going for it is it's kit 18-55 lens. For the money its very nice. I went with the Panasonic 12-35 amd while it's nicer to have since it's wider and constant apature the price is high.

I just thought I was going nuts with how reviews say it's IQ is so far ahead of the competition. It was getting to the point where I thought I was just completely retarded because I couldn't see it.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

rurikw

I have been wondering the same ever since the first test shots from one of these trans-x equipped fujis. I guess the hype is mainly about low noise on high iso jpegs which is all very fine but I am more interested in raw at base iso which certainly does not impress even after the Lightroom update. Lots of sweeping statements about this or that cam having superior IQ around. Believing your own eyes rather than such declarations might not be a bad idea.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

@ vesa1tahti: 1. Since the OP is looking at the RAW comparison, in-camera processing is taken out of the equation. Thus, any NR that the camera might apply doesn't show up. 2. I think it's been hammered home by now that LR processing by DPR uses default parameters, which aren't optimal for the Fuji files. You have to compare peak IQ, not suboptimal processing. Default parameters are fine for Bayer cameras, but aren't optimal yet for X-Trans files.

@joesuburb: I think you find that most reviews say that the IQ of ooc-JPEGs is the best that's currently available in this class, not that the IQ per se is best. Fuji has a particularly good JPEG engine that will be sufficient for a lot of people.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

Nixda, thanks for your feedback too and thanks for not responding to me like Im a troll. By the way, again, I think the Fuji looks fantastic and I'd love to own one. Personally, I couldn't imagine shooting OOC JPEG. Thats why I've never understood Olympus fanboys with the same argument over Panasonic.

These professional reviews, not just DP really need to do a better job with adjectives. I genuinely was starting to doubt my own perception because I just couldn't see it.

Glad I'm not nuts over camera IQ, now I need to work on believing a monster lives in my closet :).

Mar 4, 2013permalink

DPReview Staff

The short answer is that you're neither crazy nor wrong. Our review doesn't say the X-E1 is the best camera ever. Indeed the E-M5 also earned a gold award and scored a point higher than the X-E1. However, I do recall from my E-M5 review that the camera's JPEGs, while sharp and vibrant at their default settings, were slightly oversharpened, particularly compared to the E-PL5 and E-PM2. In these later cameras, Olympus backed off on sharpening a bit, which is better for post-processing. By default, the E-M5's JPEGs come out of the camera quite printer-ready, with a lot of pop, so they will look a lot more appealing.

Both cameras are quite good, and produce raw files that offer excellent detail potential. Like a good film, the X-E1's output is different; that doesn't mean it's necessarily better, but those who've used film will remember the fun of dropping in a different brand and seeing what develops.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

Shawn,

Thanks so much for the reply. I shouldn't have lumped DPR into the same category as other reviews I have seen. I apologize and I do think you were fair.

I just see review after review that the Fuji is far ahead of the competition. Without a doubt I'd love one, but I just wasn't seeing it when I looked at raw files. And like I said, the raw higher ISO files might have had less noise, but no more detail which makes it pretty much a moot point with NR added.

I figured I had to be wrong if all the reviewers seemed to agree.

Anyway, lovely review, wonderful camera, and I agree with what you say about how fun old-school film was. I've been having fun playing with metallic paper and it brings back some of that old time fun.

As a reader, I thank you for the work you do. It brings me great pleasure.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

sgoldswo

I too own an E-M5, but the way I would put it is that there is very little between the cameras in most hands and with most image processing. The cameras with the latest M43s sensor are VERY close to the APS-C cameras with the 16-18mp sensors.

However, there IS a bit of extra headroom in output/image quality that you can tease out of the x-trans sensor over and above the average bayer sensored aps-c camera and cameras with the latest M43s sensor. That runs from base ISO right through to ISO 6400. You won't get it from the jpegs and it does require RAW processing but it very much is there.

There are times when I look at the output from the x-trans sensor and it is VERY close to the Leica M9.

Mar 5, 2013permalink

dmurphey

I finally got to play with the X-E1 at Kaimuki Camera yesterday, and it got me thinking about autofocus speed. If you've only shot DSLR's, it will seem really slow. If you've used traditional rangefinders, the camera is really fast. It's all perspective...

Mar 4, 2013permalink

http://galatiotophoto.blogspot.com

Any test of Fuji AF is meaningful ONLY with last body/lens firmware (this was released cca 1 month ago). It is not probably that this FW version was in shop. The FW improved AF especially in low light.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

RoccoGalatioto

Looks like a winner to me; I'm always looking tor a nice competent and small RF type camera and this could be one of the better affordable ones.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

digby dart

Still climbing, heading towards 500 comments and nearly 13% of clicks in reviews and specs in the last five days going to the x-e1. That's a stellar performance by any measure.

Simon, that would seem to warrant a bonus for Shawn Barnett and Andy Westlake. :-D For the rest of us, it might be a good time to take a close look at adding Fujifilm shares to the portfolio.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

elvedhel

have owned the x-e1 since Uk release in Novmber. Purchased with the outstanding 18-55 kit lens. I previously owned a canon 500D with 5 lenses and sold the lot to buy this and havent looked back since. Yes the camera is slower paced, its meant to be rather than being a spray and pray shooter its designed for a little consideration and patience. with an amazing level of bracketing options, outstanding jpegs, whisper quiet operation and a joy to use i certainly wouldnt trade it in for anything else. you can find samples of my work done with it here
http://fujixphotography.weebly.com/

Mar 4, 2013permalink

Tom Caldwell

Test camera crashes, lcd only has 460mp, max 3x magnifiction and no focus peaking. Takes great images. Gets gold award. Congratulations.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

sw88

Max magnification is 10X. LCD is crystal clear.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

qwertyasdf

I bought the X-E1 used, when the seller showed me a shot taken with ISO 6400, I was immediately sold (literally) the noise level is at the same level if not better than the 5D3...
But soon reality came, Fuji cheated on the ISO and on me.
Still, it's a great little camera, but it's low-light ability is sliced into half.
I think the autofocus is adequate, and mines never freezed up...
But frankly, the ISO cheating, is not acceptable by all means and to me is a serious offense, based on this alone, the camera should not get a gold award

Mar 4, 2013permalink

zodiacfml

Just use one stop more sensitive ISO value for the XE1 in the comparison tool and it's still better than most in its class (jpeg).

Mar 4, 2013permalink

joe6pack

"By our tests, the X-E1's measured sensitivities are about 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower than marked" - isn't that cheating?

Mar 3, 2013permalink

There isn't an agreed upon standard. Also, a lot of other camera makers over-state their ISOs.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

nonicks

No it's not. You may search the the internet and forums for this topic. You should be able to find more opinions and information. And I tested that with my 60D.. Nothing scientic but the differences are not significant.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

greuceanu

@nonicks
Search for Olympus om-d em-5 iso... for the beginning. There are different standards and methodologies for iSO measurement.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

@nixda, greuceanu, you are wrong. There is only one standard, and it is actual ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard:
www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=377771
ISO 12232:2006
Photography -- Digital still cameras -- Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index

Of course, there are 5 different methods standardized in there.

DPR claim they follow it, and it is good.

Everything else, including what DxOMark does, is non-standard and as such total and complete BS.

Mar 11, 2013*permalink

RogerCooke

strange review, "less than stellar", "clunky" "crashes" , "sub par movie mode" and a gold award. Extremely very strange. Viva la difference

Mar 3, 2013permalink

PascallacsaP

Didn't see that one coming...

Mar 3, 2013permalink

autoy

Exactly. There must be something to it, right? Except in my case and many others, it seems, "less than stellar", "clunky" "crashes" are all non-existant.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

sw88

Well I didn't encounter any crashes in all my time using the camera.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

walliswizard

Had a play with one today at Focus-on-Imaging. Fabulous camera, would sell my soul for one, or near enough! Seriously good EVF compared to my X100 (which isn't *bad*), fast enough focusing for me at least, nice size, liked the lens that was on the test units (35 1.4). Yes please!

Mar 3, 2013permalink

PandaSA

The one thing that matters in this to me, more than all the rest, is that I want it. Yes, in a year Fuji will come out with the X-E1s that speeds up the focusing -- I assume that is what the "s:" is for :) -- but that does not disappoint. I have 2 Nikon DSLRs, and the 2nd is better than the 1st. I expect them all to keep releasing better stuff. But now I'm not waiting for Nikon to get better. This Fuji is just brilliant!

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

PascallacsaP

I fully agree, but the X-E2 rumor on Fuji Rumors bothers me quite a bit. It's supposed to be announced already in september. Probably a wild and wishfull guess, but what if they are right? Yeah, I already see those answers coming: "Don't wait, buy what you need/want now!" Thanks in advance... ;-)

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

muratime

I have been waiting for this review for a long time..
I think it deserves the gold spot! I own one.
However camera ISO level sensitivity is not reflecting the truth.
It is mostly half or 2/3 stop darker than my Nikon's results...
Moreover I still found Nikon D700 WB is more realistic than Fuji's... But D700 is not that great in this area as well.
Last more point.. LCD screen gives more warmer/yellowish results than it is actually... D700 was giving more cooler results either...
ayway, still very good camera.. and I wam desperately waiting for 23mm f1.4 Fuji lens.. I believe it will also be most successfull combination set available in all photography market alon with this camera...

Mar 3, 2013permalink

@DPR:
what are those pale horizontal pinstripes in the babyfoot pictures in the section entitled "Bokeh"? regardless of lens (18-55 or 35mm) or opening, the fullsize images of the babyfoot game all have very thin pale horizontal lines/banding right across the image, at a varying distance from each other.
It seems to be something with either the sensor (improbable because they are not evenly spaced) or more probably the in-camera processing.
I've seen this before in other samples as well (I don't remember what camera it was from) the pic was of a single engine plane, and the banding was visible in the blue sky. It doesn't seem to be some kind of horizontal moiré either, because the bands perfectly follow scrolling, and are always in the same place when you re-open the pic.
Surely I'm not the only one to pick up on this. but I don't recall seeing it discussed anywhere.
I noticed them when looking at the ball. they traverse the ball, the field, players, everything regardless of color.

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/samples/bokeh/BKH-1855-36.JPG

...continued

On this page of the review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/6
scroll down until you see the babyfoot game (table soccer).

here's a direct link to the 3 original images that I'm referring to:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/samples/bokeh/BKH-35-36.JPG

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/samples/bokeh/BKH-35-14.JPG

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Tom_A

Hi, I opened the first image that you linked and zoomed towards the ball.
I can't seen any banding issues / stripes.
I wonder if there is an issue with your graphics card ?

Mar 3, 2013permalink

I did not see any banding either. Sometimes JPEGs tend to band depending on the monitor/card and the enlargement ratio used.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Yes, you guys are right.
I've since rebooted, and now they come and go (click to zoom, click to unzoom, click to zoom, disappears, scroll, a couple lines reappear). Yet when I originally posted, none of that would make them go away - they'd stick, and in the same locations. Giving a definite impression it was in the image.
But, as you guys pointed out, it appears to be the PC for sure.
I wish I could remove my post... don't want to cast any unjust doubt onto the camera.
Sorry Fuji.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

Dear ADMIN, please REMOVE THIS COMMENT THREAD because it is much more confusing than helpful. The problem was in authors crazy PC. The author itself wish his own comment be removed.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mar 5, 2013permalink

Chris_LC

One thing that I don't see stressed out much is that the X-E1 is an incredibly easy camera to use. I have a Canon 5DII and my wife got an X-E1 2 months ago.
It is such an easy camera to borrow. Everything you need to set to take a picture is on a dial (with fixed focal lenses, here the 18mm). Even though I use it very rarely, when I do everything makes sense at a glance and I get the picture I want.
And of course the X-E1 plus 2 lenses weights the same as the Canon lens cap (OK, a little more :-) )
I'm not giving up my gear though!

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Hugo808

Yes, and I think that dials have got to make a comeback if camera manufacturers are going to keep peoples interest in their new models, there are only so many pixels and focus points you can sell people before they realise not much has changed in the last ten years.

Input dials aren't just a neat retro feature they make using a camera so much easier and more pleasant that all this menu shuffling and button pressing.

I dare Nikon to follow suit and make a digital FM3! I'd be first in line....

Mar 3, 2013permalink

matty_boy

i agree and disagree on this one. The approach with the dials is excellent (although not an original fuji "thing" ) it just makes so much sense but then the exact opposite is the mechanism for selecting focus points which is awful. Having owned a touch screen GX-1 prior to the X-E1 touching the focus point on the screen and shooting was such a useful feature that, if anything, makes the Fuji approach even worse. Couldn't they settle on a system similar to that on most standard DSLRs where its possible when using the EVF.

Mar 4, 2013permalink

zos xavius

This review seems to be stacked in fuji's favor, though I realize it may be unintentional. I do read some of these reviews pretty thoroughly and this was one of them. A few things of note. Since they are lying and overstating iso, it would be valid to compare these sensors at true iso value. I'm guessing 3200 is more like 2000. That's a pretty big difference. 6400 is probably more like 3200 on the other cameras and I'm thinking it might not look so much better if all things were equal here. Also the foreground part of the studio shot is much closer in the xe-1 shot. Was the 35 used vs 50s on the k-01 and nex-7? It is either different focal lengths and perspective or the studio shot was moved at some point. My point is that it makes many of the detail parts of the shot look better because they are taking up more of the frame. I think it is is intriguing but its hard to make apples to apples comparisons when things are different. I'm always interested in noise and resolution first.

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

1. I'm critical of the ISO thing myself (I have an X-E1), but it's actually not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Measuring 'true' ISOs is practically impossible anyway (DxO comes closest to a decent approach, but they won't review the X-Trans cameras as they aren't compatible with the DxO test scheme that is only useful for Bayer sensors). I also have a D7000, and when setting common focal lengths and apertures the shutter speeds on the D7000 to give an image with equal brightness are actually slower than what the X-E1 choses.

2. Yes, indeed, different focal lengths were used. It's been historically difficult, if not impossible to really compare apples to apples with any camera review. If the reviews got you intrigued about a camera, there isn't really anything better than to get a hold of one and putting it through its paces.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

I compared X-E1 against D4 and D800e, the difference was 1/3 of a stop at most, when aiming for similar midrange gray densities in in-camera JPEG files. Calculating the exact ISO is of course a bit more complicated, but I am not worrying about it after the test I did.

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

muratime

Hi Nixda, I have also X-E1 and D700. My friend has D7000.
I checked. Most daylight situations, same settings X-E1 is delivering 2/3 stop lower EV results. No way D7000 comes darker. We tested many times... zos xaviuos is totally right about this issue. It is behind common ISO sesnsitivity. So all marketing about its high iso performance is not fair at all and can be considered as either lie or tech disabilty of Fuji to measure standard iso levels.... It's a shame.
Moreover with kit lens, my 12 mp Nikon still gives more detail in same focal length equivalent shots... Also Fuji highlights are not strong as D700 or D7000... Nikon has some edge...

Mar 3, 2013permalink

I found the biased iso indication short after I bought xe1. Xe1 indicates iso 6400 when Samsung nx1000 iso5000. It makes 2/3EV higher iso at XE1. But for fair comparison you should always verify that these images from different cameras have the same histogram ( the same real exposure ), but for sure check histograms in THE SAME image viewer on PC(not in camera!). After doing it this way I would say XE1 indicates ISO more near 1/2EV to NX1000. As XE1 is often compared to Oly EM5 you should know that EM5 indicated iso is also incorrect (according arguably the most precise test, DxoMark, it is biased 1EV in whole iso range). In DxoMark test you could see that most cameras indicated iso is biased. For XE1 ISO bias seems be more than usual, but it really depends which camera you compare to.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

...continue:
With this knowledge I was comparing OOC JPEGS (with lowest noise reduction setting !!) with converted RAW of other cameras. (Such comparison seems to me most fair for XE1 because). And I compared iso6400 of XE with ISO3200 of other cameras ( knowing that this is NOT fair for XE1) ... and found out that also at this for XE1 not fair comparison XE1s noise versus detail is outstanding. This finding from test charts comparison I confirmed many times at my 3 month XE1 usage. It shows that comparing cameras at their DEFAULT setting is often not reasonable, digital cameras are very customizable and for experienced photographer default settings behaviour doesn't matter. I compared images from imaging-resource.com where there could be found some XE1 JPEGS with minimal noise reduction.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

nonicks

Hi NIxda, No offense but dId you test it yourself? I own a XE1 and and I compare it with my 60D. The difference is NOT significant. I did not do any scientific or lab test. But I am quite sure it's not what you are suggesting.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

I just discovered that the images in review was taken with MAXIMAL noise reduction setting (see exif info:NR=HARD=+2). Default setting is =0. But I strongly prefer to use MINIMAL NR=-2(minus 2). You get considerably MORE DETAIL at higher ISO, with NO CHROMA noise and with only natural luminance noise.
In my own 3 months experience OOC JPEG images are really TOP, with a lot of fine detail and only little noise (and no chroma noise). I do not worry to shoot auto ISO up 6400, this was something unbelievable with my previous DSLR cameras (Pentax, Canon).

Mar 3, 2013permalink

RFC1925

This was so surprising that I had to check myself but you're right. I downloaded the ISO 6400 jpg sample (dscf4223.jpg) and the exif says: "High ISO Noise Reduction : Strong"

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

mumintroll

Fuji X-E1 not bad. But personally I think much better IQ have Sigmas DP1,DP2,DP3. I would really like to compare them in Raw.
For studio, where is lot of light, for landscapers are Sigmas the best choice. I just regret, that we will never see review of those cameras here.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

The Sigmas have better IQ at low ISO only, as you alluded to. At higher ISO they fall apart quite quickly. However, if base ISO is what you're interested in, then the Sigmas are unbeatable.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Michael_13

Not so sure about this.
As much as i like the Foveon's sharpness - sometimes it produces strange colors.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

pca7070

When I get used to the crispness of the photos taken with sigma cameras, all those bayer sensor photos look too fuzzy to me. My Canon and M43 gears have been sitting in the dry box for a long time since I got the SD1M and DP1/2M.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

One of the most talked about camera since D800 is finally reviewed, but I don't understand why it took so long.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

this is the Fuji XE1 review.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

It could be they wait for new ACR converter with better Xtrans support. Also newest FW was released only recently. Its in only at our favor if the test is performed with latest firmware and raw converters. I often had regret if some already finished review was not updated with most recent FW if it solved relevant problems

Mar 3, 2013permalink

wildkat2

If nothing else comes out of all of this I hope DPR takes away a few things:

1 - we read the reviews
2 - we read them carefully
3 - we remember what was said previously
4 - we WANT reviews to be comparable across brands and time
5 - we CARE about the awards
6 - we might disagree with the reviews but they are better across the board than anyone else

and finally.....there is no way to make us all happy

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Seagull TLR

we???

Mar 3, 2013permalink

wildkat2

Well when there are 400+ comments here that s a lot of we

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Forget comparisons across brands, cameras, and time. Think about it for a moment what it would entail, and you'll give up pretty quickly.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

samhain

400 comments. Wow.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

J Parker

We often have a zero-sum mentality when it comes to cameras -- in other words, for my camera to be superior, every other camera must be inferior. These days, technology has come so far that comparing Fujifilm to Nikon to Canon, etc. is like comparing Porsches to Corvettes to Ferraris, and so on. As a result, we as photographers have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to camera selection and have the luxury to nitpick over things that may be more or less important depending on the needs of the individual photographer (i.e. arguing over operation speeds that vary only milliseconds from one camera model to another).

When speed is critical, I go to my Nikons. When image quality is crucial, the Fujifilm comes out the box. Why? Because in my studio, it is the portraits shot with the Fujifilm cameras that make customers ask what camera took that shot and place orders. I challenge you to actually use the Fujifilm X-E1 to take real portraits of real people and not be impressed.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

wildkat2

LOL, the "discussion" here is down right civil compared to car "discussions." Get a Ford and Chevy guy going........

Mar 2, 2013permalink

X-E1 versus Nikon D800 is like Aston Martin against Toyota Land Cruiser. If I can have only one, it is the Land Cruiser. If two, then the Aston Martin also.

With cameras I can actually afford it! With cars I am happy with my LC...

Mar 3, 2013permalink

mike kobal

400

Mar 2, 2013permalink

mediapro

I am not a regular poster, but sometimes I want to say something. Dpreview is, as for me, a great site. I am a fully professional photographer, which does not mean I am better than others, but it means that I know what I am talking about. And all these comments are disturbing me. I can not imagine there is one propho on the line here... All these comments make me laugh on one hand and on the other hand I find them very sad. Use this camera, make pictures in stead of selling all this bs. Then you'll find out Dpreview is right. It was also right if it got silver, or if it got nothing at all. This is, I can assure, a wonderful camera. I made pictures using an X-E1 of professional models (cfr Geneviève Lagravière - not the first the best) (you can see them on my fb). Well let's talk. Or no. I don't want to talk. Just look and see. And wonder. What Fuji nowadays produce is really top notch. No Leica for me. I have been working with an M6 for about 7 years. But no digital one for me.!

Mar 2, 2013permalink

vesa1tahti

A great review, indeed. I've been working with superzooms S100FS and HS20EXR. They are great cameras on their own field. X-E1 is a camera of excellent IQ. And waiting for the HS50EXR high speed Fuji.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

matty_boy

Whilst i understand where you are coming from, I find the holier than thou "i am above this sort of thing, go take photos" cliche just as bad as the incessant hair splitting BUT I think it is important to put things in context. These comments are made in relation to a very technical review that provides finite and comparable measurements acros a wide range of parameters. Cameras in the modern age are highly complex technical gadgets and measurements that provide the ability to make objective comparison are readily available. I am surprised when people are surprised that people choose to argue over these finer points. Lets be fair, the review has little to do with the art of taking a photograph and everything to do with measuring technical aspects of the picture taking - so dont be surprised when people argue about this. Also remember (see apple vs android for this) Marketing budgets of millions engender an almost irrational brand loyalty in technology so people will get passionate.....

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Yep. I finally completely forget about Leica since this X revolution.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

There are some professionals also commenting here (35 years of press photography for me), but as we make mostly sensible comments you might not notice them.

I have both X-Pro1 and X-E1 and they are great for certain kind of photography (travel, street etc) as they are light, have great IQ and are a joy to work with. For most professional assignments I do use D4 and D800e though.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Hugo808

If it's so good, why don't I like the photos?

I've never been impressed by the Fuji image quality, I even hurried to the Fuji site for their samples because I assumed everyone else must be using it wrong. But no, their own pics had the same weird, fuzzy, pale look to them.

Can you publish a link to your photo's you claim are so good that people ask what they are taken with?

Mar 3, 2013permalink

DPReview Staff

If you don't like the photos, the camera's not for you. That's the beauty of camera reviews, we give you photographs and you can make your own decision based on real evidence.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

mediapro

Hugo, you can see some of them on my facebookpage. Google for Hans de Greve and you'll find them. But I work B&W. Personally I am very impressed by the Fuji image quality... Best regards, Hans

Mar 4, 2013permalink

Hugo you should not expect that you will like any highly appreciated camera at its DEFAULT settings. What YOU would LIKE, SOMEBODY else will NOT. In camera settings are here to be USED by the user in order hi will like pictures. I almost never used default settings of any camera owned.
The picture looks soft to you? - increase sharpening.
Colors seems not attractive? Increase saturation. Or in case of Fuji use its wonderfull collor profiles (film simulations). These are impressive and very easy to use. Many appreciate a lot this Fuji feature!
I would certainly use the lowest noise reduction setting for images published in this review, this would reveal a lot of lost detail.

Mar 5, 2013permalink

Syktasy

Why on the same ISO (6400) and the same aperture (F8) every camera has time shorter than 1/1600 and on Fuji is 1/1000? I don't like this. I have to increase ISO to have the same time like on other camera? ISO is not a standard?

Mar 2, 2013permalink

No, ISO is not standardized. BTW, the Fujis aren't worse in this respect than many other cameras that also oversell ISO. If you have more than one camera system, then you may work out the relationship from one to the other. If not, just go take pictures and enjoy.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Notice that they used a 35mm lens for the Fuji, while all the other cameras they used a 50mm.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

InTheMist

@nixda
ISO stands for International Standards Organization and I'm on some of the standards groups (not photography related). So yeah, this inconsistency does bother me.

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

Syktasy

In this case ISO comparations is not fair. Good marketing from Fuji.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

dengx

Actually nixda is right.
ISO in the digital cameras allows the manufacturer to come with whatever that manufacturer says is "right". And it still conforms to that standard then.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

digby dart

This is a very successful camera review, it has generated a lot of interest and discussion, nearly 400 comments and the x-e1 is topping the camera scale at almost 10% of clicks in reviews and specs over the last five days.

Well done dpreview.

ps. Reuters ran a story recently showing a senior Western Politician explaining how our western systems cherish the inalienable right of the individual to be an idiot - I see many are testing that freedom in the comments below.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Jonathan Lee

err... who voted u to be here?

just kidding.

welcome and fool on. :)

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Shunda77

digby dart in da house!! yeah!

Seriously, spot on mate.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Jellytime

Want one so bad, but cannot afford one right now. Maybe after a price drop.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

gl2k

Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

I cannot help but wonder if the guy forgot to turn image stabilization off when he had it on the tripod. It wouldn't be the first time. They did this with the Samsung NX they tested... images are horrible on here, yet, magically, other websites manage to produce clear test images with the camera, images better than it's peers.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

57even

There is far more detail loss in the other cameras. Fuji are not cooking the raw files, the demosaic method for this camera simply removes a lot of chroma noise. The default sharpening on the ACR release candidate is also very low. The converter that comes with the camera is a lot crisper, but ACR sharpens up pretty well too.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

I just noticed that the other cameras in the comparison use a 50mm lens while the Fuji test pics were done with a 35mm.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

XE1 has absolutely TOP detail vs. noise quality. The problem here is that review shots use HIGHEST noise reduction setting. BUT for pixel peeping best detail/noise gives LOWEST NR. Check images at imaging-resource.com and look for OOC JPEGs with LOWEST noise reduction! I own XE1 3 months and detail/noise is TOP with optimal settings.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Michael_13

@gl2k

Maybe you should also read the text and not only look at the pictures. Might save you from drawing wrong conclusions.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

hmm, the Pentax K5 IIs actually has better image quality that the Fuji.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

As long as you use the word A is "better" than B, you're still novice.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

you're still novice, lol. Plasnu, not a single picture in your gallery go figure and are you blind? Get your yourself some glasses and take another look at raw samples novice.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

rusticus

I think this X-E1 does not have to have - the legend, the X100 own - it is simply unbeatable

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

photog4u

NOSTROVIA! ;) На здоровье!

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

A perhaps silly question about lenses for the Fujifilm X cameras.

What I would really like to have for the compact Fuji-Film X-cameras (this includes the X Pro 1 and the XE-1) is one single reasonably sized zoom lens covering (ideally for me) approximately the 28mm-200m equivalent range. It does not seems that such a lens is on the Fuji roadmap.

Question: Is such a lens just not reasonably possible (e.g. because of physical/technical laws)? Or is it more a matter of marketing opportunities?

I believe to understand that zoom lenses covering such a large range typically result in a IQ that is below the IQ achievable with "prime lenses". But for my purposes, I am quite happy with the IQ of my DX AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm (27-300mm equivalent) zoom lense.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

Marty4650

Robert, you don't see many superzoom lenses for MILC cameras because they pretty much defeat the purpose of having a small and light kit. It is very difficult to build one that is compact. They are also pretty expensive.

And when they do exist, they are not among the most popular lenses offered. Most people want the prime lenses, especially the pancakes.

However, the more complete systems do have them. M4/3 has a 14-140mm (28-280mm EFL) and a 14-150mm (28-300mm EFL). NEX has an 18-200mm lens (27-300mm) and Nikon 1 has a 10-100mm (27-270mm EFL.)

I suppose eventually Fuji X will eventually have one too, but I don't expect to see it until they add a few more other more popular lens types.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

Marty4650,

Just to tell "Thank you very much" for your helpful answer.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Let's not forget another APS-C camera that offers a 18-200mm zoom, the Samsung NX series. (NX20, NX300). The camera is relatively inexpensive, but that lens is over $800. But I agree with Marty... it sort of defeats the purpose. So I think that cost of such a lens is also a factor. And, the fact that the back focus distance on the Fuji is only 17.7mm may also impose some limitations (which is almost as close as a Nikon1 (at 17mm) that has the smallest sensor and lenses of all the CSCs).
So what I ended up doing, instead of getting the 18-200mm for the NX20, bought a Fuji X-S1 with zoom range equivalent to 24-624mm - unfortunately, it has a small 2/3" sensor and can't substitute the NX20.
I'm now eyeing the X-E1 just because I love the buttons and layout on my X-S1 so much, and it would give me more consistency when switching between the two cameras... and with their 35mm f/1.4 lens, it must make an awesome combo (surpassing the X100/x100s for sure).

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

Erik Magnuson

Sony NEX has also has a 17mm register distance yet there are 3 different 18-200mm lenses for it. It's less a technical issue than a marketing one: Fuji currently targets the enthusiast market. As they only have premium priced bodies and more limited distribution, this makes sense and helps establish it as a premium band.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

I think you may need to understand Prime lens is the original X concept. Fujifilm made kit zoom just for marketing purpose, not their original intention, therefore do not expect much more zoom lenses in the future.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

It is laughable how some people come out of the woodwork with their crystal ball and tell us what the decision-makers behind closed doors are doing and even thinking!
FYI, there are no less than 3 zoom lenses on Fuji's X roadmap:
18-55mm, 55-200mm, 10-24mm

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Marty4650

Yes... and those three are pretty much standard zoom ranges for anyone who wants to create a complete system.

The whole point of interchangeable lens cameras is to give you maximum flexibility, so you can customize your kit to suit your needs and shooting style.

And it looks like Fuji has that goal in mind. This is good news for Fuji users, since it is always great to have more options rather than fewer ones.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

A sincere "Thank You" to All of You for your useful answers and explanations.

Based on what I learned from your freedback: I should not count-on to have this year for the "compact" X-cameras a "reasonably sized" zoom lens covering approximately the 28mm-200mm (equivalent) range.

For this reason, to complement my current "large" Nikon D5000 (that I love) with a less bulky camera, instead of considering the X Pro 1 and XE-1, it is probably (if as expected, the review by dpreview of that camera will not come with bad surprises) the X20 that I will buy for the following reasons:
- it is relatively compact
- it has an Optical View Finder
- it seems to have a good IQ
- among the X-Series, it is that camera that comes with just one single lens closest to the zoom range I am interested in.

I guess and hope that I will be happy with it. And in a couple of years, I will see again, which "compact camera" will then be my favorite.

Thanks again to you and to dpreview

Mar 3, 2013*permalink

Marty4650

Robert... if you need a large zoom range for occasional snapshots then why not just pick up one of the newer travel zoom cameras and toss it in your bag?

For a mere $250 you can get a Panasonic ZS20 that has a 20X zoom range (24-480mm). It won't do as well as any $1,000 camera can, but it will provide reasonably good results in decent light.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Hi Marty

Thank You very much for your assistance, that I appreciate very much.

The reason why I prefer the X20: its optical view Finder.

Currently, I own a Lumix LX5. It is surely a nice camera. But it lacks an OVF and on bright days, in the nature, I do nearly not see on its monitor, what I would like to photography. I tried my luck with an EVF and was quite disappointed... I had no pleasure at all at the colors and dullness of what the EVF was showing. For me (I am not at all a good photograph; i just enjoy to take photographies of landscapes that i love), the pleasure that i have when shooting and looking through an OVF at the landscape that i photography is an essential part of my overall picture-taking experience.

As a result, I do not use anymore my Lumix LX5 and I am therefore looking for another compact camera to complement my Nikon D5000 (continuation in next Post - hoping nobodfy will get angry about that).

Mar 3, 2013permalink

...continuation from previous post

A couple of hours ago, I remembered that the X20 has a 2x digital zoom. The combination of the up to 112 mm equivalent of its lens and the 2x digital zoom will probably be OK for me (assuming/hoping that its optical view finder shows the results of the digital zoom operation).

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Today, somewhere else on the dpreview Website, I was unfortunately told, that the optical view finder does not show the result of a digital zooming. I will therefore have to live with the maximal 112mm tele zooming... and will probably be able to live with it.

Hoping that in a couple of years there will be good quality compact cameras, coming with an OVF and working with one good compact zoom lens covering approxinately the 28mm-200mm zoom range.

Mar 4, 2013*permalink

zos xavius

This is a fascinating review. I've pixel peeped extensively on this one. What's up with the k-01? The AA filter looks week to the point where I'm seeing false detail, but yet subtle details are being smoothed. Yeah I realize that at high ISO pentax smooths noise. This is more aggresive than my k-5.

The k-01 resolves more than the fuji. (raw test might not be best here) The NEX at base iso outresolves all of them and shows outstanding detail, but quickly falls apart above ISO 1000. With careful noise reduction it may still edge out the K-01, but the color noise is bothersome and not the kind of noise I like to see. The fuji does very well with high iso though and IMO looks better/cleaner/etc at 6400 than any of them, but at the same time with a loss of detail that is very subtle and nothing like the smearing you see with bayer pattern sensors and hardware noise reduction.Fuji has done something really different here. It will be interesting to see how they can develop it further.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

zos xavius

Ok...I looked at jpegs for a more fair comparison and it looks pretty neck and neck with the k-01 but certainly edging it out on fine details like the feathers. Pretty impressive. I would be happy with either to be honest. I would be very interested in the x system if they could get their raw processing issues in ACR sorted. It doesn't look like its there yet. The high DR mode in jpeg looks quite interesting though, likely negating one of the biggest needs for raw processing for most people which is to pull highlights and push shadows. WB isn't as easily corrected in jpeg though. Its probably a good thing I don't have a couple of grand to blow on a new system. :)

Mar 2, 2013permalink

1. ACR: it's pretty much there. There are some issues with certain scenes, but they also occur on Bayer sensors. Consider the raw processing issue to be solved.

2. Although the DR expansion modes do work sometimes, they aren't useful if one wants to get the best possible exposure. Underexposing and raising ISO don't increase dynamic range. In fact, they decrease it, so I generally stay away from it. Instead, shoot raw. For high-DR scenes, nothing beats processing raws in an external processor. That applies to pretty much any camera.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

3systermuser

>it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker.

no longer coveted gold award I think , recently all your reviewed cameras getting gold or at least silver , why is that?

Mar 2, 2013permalink

chopsteeks

Unless a camera being reviewed is horribly bad, it will always be gold or silver. Adverstisement money perhaps ?

Or...

Perhaps all these cameras are really good.

Better to look at pros and cons of the review and use this to determine which ones are important ..

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Yes, they are all good cameras. These are exciting times for photographers. Besides, DPR judges cameras against their intended target group (i.e., expectations), so two cameras that are vastly different in their feature set can still both have the same overall score.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

I would have been surprised if X-E1 didn't get Gold Award.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

steveh0607

As a XE-1 owner I can say the review is fair. The camera delivers great image quality but does have a few quirks, like every other camera. It's not designed to be an action/sports camera so don't judge it for what it isn't. Fuji designed it to be a great street/travel camera, and it excels at that.

But I did find the comment in the "Cons" section: "Large and chunky build won't suit everyone" to be strange. The camera is boxy, sure, but it isn't large or chunky: It's just about the same size as my FE-2, minus the mirror box. I wouldn't call that large or chunky.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

marike6

Totally agree, I wouldn't even call the X-Pro1 "large and chunky" as it's extremely lightweight, with good ergonomics. I wouldn't consider the X-E1 to be large or chunky. That's just an odd characterization that perhaps stems more from the comparison with cameras with stripped down UI like the NEX-5N. But viewed on it's own merits, there is no way we can say a camera with 129 x 75 x 38 mm (5.08 x 2.95 x 1.5″) at 350 gr is "large and chunky". Mount the 18 f2 pancake on it, you have an incredibly small, and lightweight high performance shooter.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

in relation to others in it's category, it could be a little bit more compact. I don't find it entirely unfair. however, it's not as severe a size difference as, say, the omdem5 is in relation to it's mft peers.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Revenant

The E-M5 is not as large as many people think, about the same size as the E-P3 with the addition of a hump. It's certainly smaller than the X-E1.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

RFC1925

Well it is taller than pretty much any of the rangefinder style mirrorless competition. E.g. NEX-7, GX1, NX300 and E-M5 are all smaller and don't have stipped down UI.

When I first saw X-E1 and X-Pro1 in the store I was surprised by the size. I personally would prefer them to be a bit smaller and I can imagine that for some the size could be an issue. For me it wouldn't be the deciding factor though.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

@rfc1925, agree with you totally. I'd be willing to overlook the size - at least it's smaller than the xpro1. but the size is still a bit of a turn-off though. as I mentioned in another post, I'd only consider it because I love the user interface (buttons, manual controls) on the X-S1 that I own, and it would make for a more consistent user experience between the two cameras I use.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Please do not be confused by its body look and measures. I have Samsung NX1000 which is smaller and has larger grip, would seems it better in hand. But in hand I feel XE1 more confident than XN1000. Just by look I was not confident of XE1 grip, but in real usage it is very ergonomic. I feel very sure to hold and operate it by single hand.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

milwman

I Have this Camera and being an older guy that remembers MF and having Canon FD lenses its great to shoot them and the files I get are great. Is this camera for you? I don't care. The DP review is 90% on the mark, Maybe a bit to negative. After they come out with a X Pro 1s and X E 1s AF will be right up there with the DSLR's. but isn't bad now at all.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

autoy

Completely agree, I thought perhaps the review was a bit too rough on the conclusions. People can't underestimate how much FUN it is to shoot with this camera or any of the X models, that is probably something not said enough about them, beyond sensor quality or technical specs.

Mar 3, 2013permalink

Shunda77

Fuji are finally really pulling it all together, they've had some pretty big teething problems with their x series in the past few years, but now it is maturing very well indeed.
Fuji are looking like they will finally become a very serious player in the digital era, they have done what Kodak couldn't do.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

ogl

Fuji is dwarf who want to survive in digital era.
Marginal system, low sales, strange techonlogy.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

PascallacsaP

Never underestimate an underdog. Fujifilm jumped on the compact ILC bandwagon at just the right time. Canon, to name a giant, didn't.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

Shunda77

Nikon and Canon are giants who want to thrive in the digital era.
Stale systems, declining market share, boring technology.

Fuji = welcome to the future.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

ogl

Relax, guys!
DPREVIEW is not independent reviewer for many years already.
They just help to sell camera of their owners. It's business and nothing else.
Dpreview is sold to Amazon on 2007.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune".

Mar 2, 2013permalink

ET2

"Relax, guys! " ogl is a Pentax fanboy who thinks only Pentax cameras, the "brilliant" (sarcasm) K01 deserves gold awards.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

MJJSevilla

That´s one possibility. Another is that people who have actually used a camera for long enough to make an in depth review might have a different opinion than people who haven´t used it. Let´s use Occam´s razor here and decide which one is more likely. Why would Fuji have more influence with Amazon than Canon or Nikon or Olympus?

Mar 2, 2013permalink

dengx

Yeah ogl, because Fujifilm is a major player that throws money at Amazon.
Get a grip.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

ogl

I'm not fanboy and never was. I don't care about DPREVIEW's reviews at all. I tell the truth. DPReview is the faithful dog of AMAZON.
Fujifilm advances X system and X-trans with lavish hand.
If they can't sell this marginal system, they will fail.

I'm sorry that ET2, dengx and MJJSevilla are the victims of marketing and consumer society.

DR's tests of DP are ridiculous, by the way.

K-01 - I don't care about K-01 and DPR's awards. It's the game for silly fans.

I've used Ricoh GXR for a last year.

Mar 2, 2013permalink

dengx

ogl, Fujifilm doesn't earn a cent running photo/camera business so they can't really fail if X system will not sell good.

Last time their imaging solutions segment provided income was the 2004.

So why do they still produce cameras? Why do they still operate in that segment that provided them loses for the consecutive 8 years?

It's Japan, they do not run photo business with great profits in mind (that is not saying that they do not care about profits at all) but because it's their company roots and pride and withdrawing it/closing it/selling it to another company would put them into bad light/shame.

And as for Fujifilm marketing - they are pretty much like a blind man in the dense fog, suggesting that they are throwing money at Amazon is pretty much good laugh.

Mar 2, 2013*permalink

MJJSevilla

Or I just made my decision based on the kind of camera I like to use - previously I had a Hasselblad X Pan and a Bessa R2 and I like to use a camera with the option of an OVF with framelines and manual controls and I don´t give a rats backside about video or AF speed since they have little relevance to how I shoot. Is it so difficult to accept to some people that other people have different priorities to them? I hope the photos you take with your Ricoh show more imagination than your arguments here.....

Mar 2, 2013permalink