Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review

EM5 user comment. I didn't have the reported lock ups for months, then one day after fumbling about and changing a lens, shazaam, it locked up. Perhaps it's just like my car's digital display and bluetooth, sometimes it just gets confused, but you need the right, or wrong, circumstances... Have a good weekend taking photos.

57, So you criticise others for having a contrary opinion to yours based on the facts that are in front of all of us, but it turns out you are just defending your own buying decision. And you conclude that others need to grow up. Right......

Fact is, it's hard choosing cameras when you can't handle them first and when the manufacturers are blinding us with ever more complex spec sheets and when internet sites are letting us compare pixel differences that wouldn't show up in normal use. And to make it worse we all know there will an improved version along next month. So yeah, people get passionate about things. Just like you are.

Frankly all I really need is to see the IQ and these Fuji things take weird looking pics, to my eyes. Surprise, surprise your opinion may differ.

"I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. " ------------------ Really. I give you one from top off my head. In one of reviews of Sony camera DPR found that having two memory slots is a con. Now let me know how you find having two memory slots is less helpful then having just one.

@Jade it was an old sony camera, at that point in time no other camera maker had two slots. This became a pro when canon (or perhaps nikon) introduced two slots. It was absurd from dpr and lots of people in sony forum cretisized them.

Funny, I had a A100, A700 and A900 and I can't recall the controversy. I do recall that the Sony implementation of two slots in the A900 was rubbish given you had to write to one slot or the other and couldn't use one card for jpegs. Maybe that's what dpr were referring to...

57even,

DPR called Olympus's implementation of live view, one of the first (the first?) on a digital camera, "a problem looking for a solution", or something along those lines. Now every camera implements live view. DPR's opinions about the validity of features are not always insightful.

I think I've had my E-M5 freeze twice on me too. Not really a big issue as long as a power toggle clears it

I think "requires occasional reboots" is probably overstating the issue, by quite a bit. If you hop on over to the Fuji forum, you'll see approximately... zero... mentions of this supposed issue, and quite a few people surprised to see it mentioned in the review (since it's never been mentioned as an issue before).

For what it's worth, I've never had a crash on my X-E1, or anything happened that required a reboot.

I asked about the crashing in the Fuji forum as I hadn't experienced it on my X-E1. There weren't any crashes reported by others. And we are a quite critical bunch and aren't bashful about our cameras. Perhaps there was something wrong with the specimen DPR had. Besides, none of the myriad of other reviews reported any crashes, AFAIK. Don't read just this review; read them all, and you'll get a much more complete picture as things tend to even out and become more unbiased across many reviews.

Never need to reboot my X-E1. Where did you read the complaints? I follow the fuji X-series forums, news, reviews frequently but this has never been reported as a common problem. Point me to the source ...Or did someone just make up something?

I've owned this camera for four months and I've never had to reboot it.

@ Josh152 - I totally agree with you that DP should request another sample. If it turns out this is a sample issue, I would think DP is being very irresponsible to include such causal comments about XE-1 having unfixed bugs and gave it a Gold Award at the same time. I really question DP's credibility in the regard!

The default settings both for jpegs and in RAW for the X-Trans is softer than many competitors. It's easy enough to adjust a setting in camera, or in your RAW conversion. The details are there, don't let the default settings fool you.

Well, it is unwise to write something off based on a flawed review. Flawed in this particular aspect, not the whole review overall. There is no blurriness in the images from the X-Trans. Like Asylum Photo said above, it's a simple software setting. You should really download the RAW files and mess with them yourself, instead of taking stuff that's written at face value.

The raw files are not what's not sharp. It's the raw interpreters' inability to adequately demosaic an X-Trans sensor. Adobe and Capture One's latest interpreters do far better than their past efforts. The camera is able to output better JPEGs from raw files than even Fujifilm's own Silkypix-based raw converter. See this story for more: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

as well as this one: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested

Wildcat2 - I said no such thing.

The 35mm lens means the X-E1's scene has shallower depth-of-field than most APS-C cameras (since they're shot from further back). That does not mean the 35mm is soft or contributes to softness. It simply means that the areas of the scene that aren't relevant to testing are even further out-of-focus.

Both sharpening and blurring an image removes information. Both operations remove bits of information to emphasize certain qualities.

Sharpness does not equal detail. Imagine a picture of a knife blade. The edge of the knife ends half way through a pixel. The most accurate rendition of that pixel has some light from the knife and some from the background. However, to our eyes, that looks wrong. If we sharpen the image, we create a clear division between the knife blade and the background by pushing the pixel towards the color of the knife or the color of the background.

The image with the most detail is the image directly from the sensor (i.e. an unprocessed RAW). Any sharpening applied to that data will remove information, but also (usually) make the image look better. This is an inevitable consequence of representing a continuous medium (reality) with a discreet medium (image sensor pixels).

'sharpness = detail' must be one of the top-ten myths.

And don't forget the Pentaxists, the Casionoisseurs, the Fujifilmers, the Leicaniacs, the Samsungowers... what a headache !

There are a lot of people who feel very insecure about their decisions.

I think it's a useful place, if the Pentax poster below hadn't done his research I might have thought I was alone in thinking the Fuji IQ was very poor, then I might have been seduced by its looks and those sexy dials and bought one!

IQ That's how I make my decisions ultimately.

For many photography as hobby is more about the gear than the actual images is my impression. A camera is for many just a status symbol and every new model makes the own gear suddenly worthless and they crave for the newest, latest...

Actually who _really_ cares if camera X is better at ISO 6400 than camera Y? For 95% of applications ISO 3200 is enough and meanwhile even small sensor and entry models are good at higher ISO.

Yes, but when it does get finally focus, after 4 hours or so, ;) I get a shot like this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eddiemoya/8355969553/in/photostream

Not bad for a camera that cost about 5 times less.

Dpreview is a fail nowadays ...

That forum post is entertainingly written but actually most of the points fall down if seen in context. I've posted a response to his review of our review.

@RButler - I appreciate the response. I might not agree with it but I appreciate it.

How about "equivalent ISO" ?
When Fuji will finally learn how to do maths?

I don't really understand the whole idea behind these "Awards", that's why I never actually scroll down to that part of "Conclusion" page, perhaps I'll do it sometimes to click through to "Image samples" page. Why get so wind up on some numbers? DP-Reviews ;) are about what's inside, written on all these pages, and all that goes through my own subjective viewpoint on both my priorities when it comes to making a judgement on a camera/system and on the methods DPrev is using. Perhaps if someone is new to this place, he needs a number to tell him how the things look. But for somebody who's been around here for the last 8-10 years is it really that important? Even if the numbers are biased, the wording is not, although you sometimes need to read between the lines, so to speak, as with the ACR7.4 performance on X-Trans files. With various needs and various uses there is really very little sense of getting worked up with a universal scoreboard for gear... That's of course just my opinion.

Since the camera's crashing and buggy behavior didn't get mentioned in the "cons", I have to agree that the rating is emotional. Fuji cameras have always been quirky, and some people love them anyway. In fact, there's a certain outsider appeal to Fuji cameras that would be diminished in a camera that wasn't a little cantankerous.

The goal of any review is to evaluate a device's suitability to its purpose. When there are flaws, we will mention them. When there are high points, we will mention those too. We do our best to rate and quantify, but in the end, the award is subjective, not the product of a strict mathematical calculation. The ratings bars help you determine what we thought of a given feature. If, for example, Movie mode is extremely important to you, you'll see what we thought of it relative to other aspects of the camera.

Try to remember that the result is what that reviewer, or team of reviewers, thought of the camera. Not just how it performed compared to the hundreds of other cameras we've reviewed, but what we thought of it. DPReview isn't a computer or a monolith, it's a collection of people who love photography and really like cameras. We do try to prepare a review that is as consistent as it can be, but our main goal is to let readers know what we thought as honestly as possible. (cont below)

I wouldn't call it emotional grade inflation. The fact is, we gave the X-Pro1 a silver award, but the X-E1 a gold award. In the time between the two reviews, Fujifilm has made noticeable improvements. As the main reviewer on this camera, I weighed those elements, as well as the bugs I encountered. I decided the bugs were occasionally annoying, but not enough of a problem to keep me from liking and recommending the camera. Its features, image quality and design outweighed the occasional quirk. Would you have preferred I left my experience with those bugs out of the review? Wouldn't that make me biased, as people are so often fond of claiming? I gave you the tale of my experience, I showed you some of my photos, I discussed the things that led to our conclusion. Now you can make your own conclusion based on what you glean from my experience. That's the point of a review. I can't claim you'll think the same thing as I do if you use it; I can only hope my thoughts will be of use.

@Shawn Barnett - "the award is subjective, not the product of a strict mathematical calculation. The ratings bars help you determine what we thought of a given feature."

No issue with that...until you do comparison. Clearly you invite comparison between cameras because you cooked in as a tool for ratings bar section. That leads to at a minimum an assumption that ratings of one camera are objective enough to compare directly with the ratings of another camera. For example if the D4 is the only camera capable of capturing usable images at ISO 51200 then the "Low Light/High ISO" bar for every other camera should be below the D4. When, for example the D7000 is rated lower that the X-E1 despite the X-E1 topping out at ISO 6400 in RAW and the D7000 producing acceptable images at 12800, the objective comparison falls apart.

Shawn... The X-E1 is probably a wonderful camera. And most of us would love to own it. The whole question is whether it should have gotten you highest Gold Award.

Almost all the people who are commenting here have never touched this camera, but you have. So we are basing our opinions on your own words. And the problem is the inconsistency in your review finding major flaws with the camera, then giving it a Gold Award.

These are not minor niggles. These are serious flaws that really matter to many consumers.

From your review:

* "the drive mode button occasionally stopped working"
* "exposure comp dial rotates by accident."
* "inconsistent burst rate"
* "built in level isn't as accurate as we would like"
* "less than stellar AF"
* "sub par video performance"
* "the camera crashed on occasion"

A Gold Award camera should not need "a bit of scotch tape" to keep dials from moving accidentally.

This is a great camera but it shouldn't have a Gold Award.

Emotional Grade Inflation.

Don't forget that DPreview is not for photographers. It's for gear heads, the reviews and forum are proof as such. I'm not saying this is a bad thing it's just how DPR is.

Still though no site digs deeper into reviews like DPR does but for a real-world perspective talk to the pros that shoot with the gear.

>> First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras. <<

Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.

Anyway, have fun with those two cameras.

@Managarm: >>Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.<<

That is EXACTLY my point! Anyone coming to this site without understanding how it works may automatically assume that based on the "NUMBERS" that the X-E1 will give them an RX1 experience for half price. That is one of the many reasons I don't care for the reviews here or at least the scoring aspect of them. So in effect, the RX1 becomes the loss leader (SCORE-wise, not price wise) to drive sales of lessor cameras. If I were Amazon, I’d be OK with it.

For me Nikon did the very affordable D7100, the affordable yet stunning 85mm f/1.8, the 70-200 f/4 VR, etc...

Those lenses might not be flashy, but they are a hell of a lot sharper than those Fuji lenses!!!

Hmm..My K-5 takes sharp pictures, has tons of lenses to choose from, hasn't crashed and focuses well. My K-01 does the same in roughly the same form factor. And my K200 has blown past its expected shutter count while being dragged through two war zones. Oh and my K-5 and K-01 combined cost less than the Fuji. yeah Im good with Pentax.

I think the camera that you looking for is Fujifilm X-Pro1, the big brother camera of X-E1. They have the same interchangeable lenses system. But the X-Pro1 has OVF.

Narupol - X-Pro 1 looks great on paper, in reality it's crap.It should be granted as an example on "how to spoil potentially brilliant camera". I don't give a s*** about specifications, what matters is how camera works like in field and X-PRO1 behaves worse than an entry-level DSLR.
I hope that they actually go back to design board and make X-pro 2 from scratch (as well as fire those ****** who wrote firmware for X-PRO 1). If they do: my money awaits.

Plastek you are going to have to explain to me how the X-Pro1 is crap I'm afraid. I've found it gives image quality little short of a Leica M9 for a lot less money. Generally I don't find that crap. I had quite a successful evening shooting a charity launch with one plus an EF-42 flash. Much better results than my last FF DSLR. Again, I would find that hard to bracket as "crap"...

@brandon1000
AF is NOT slow! Is slow in very few situations with some lenses (60mm) in poor light and with subjects who lack contrast. It's not a DSLR speed AF but no mirrorless camera can rival DSLR's PDAF yet. AF of X-E1 is snappy and precise. Try it for yourself with last firmware update and 18-55 zomm lens and you will be surprised.

No problem with my 550D with 17-55mm, 50mm or even the 18-55mm it came with, thanks Sebit.

How come FF Leica doesn't have AF??? Use your brain and you'll find out!!!

Leica...that is HYSTERICAL.....I do use my brain...all the time...let's see..how many sports/action photographers use Leica in 2013? Zero.
That is because accurate, modern AF give you waaaaaaay more many keepers then not...compared to hand focusing or, apparently Fuji $1400 camera. Don't get me wrong...Leica is an incredible way to go...just not for action... ..Even the $400 Nikon V1 (with two lenses included) has dead-on AF...
Why defend something lame...Fuji...give us the goods!!!! No excuse! :-)

@JWest
Maybe when your kids are sleeping...

@Jimmy jang Boo
Yeah, on a second thought - my phone's camera is quite good at it, too. Must be the AF.

At the very least.. you'd think DPR could add to studio comparison database with at least Jpegs available.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd1/19

Here are the Sigma SD-1 results. Why these aren't selectable in the general compare directory is beyond me.

Well, at least the movie mode really is a minor issue in a camera that's clearly aimed at stills photographers. Not every camera has to excel at everything.
And as for the gold award, the awards are supposed to be totally subjective. They are meant to show you how the reviewer feels about the camera. If he enjoyed using the camera more than most cameras, or thinks it represents great value for money, then a gold award is perfectly reasonable. You may read it as a recommendation of the camera, for those who agree with the reviewer, that the video and AF issues are not major flaws. You don't agree, and I don't either (in the case of the AF), but others might. It's all subjective.

"Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use."

Look, I use the camera since October, and I think that the review is rather correct.
For a photographer like me who doesn't really care about video that specific disadvantage doesn't matter. I haven't even once tried to film with it, that is how little I care about it.
But the image quality with the 35mm is seriously good.
Regarding AF, I would honestly say that the speed will be sufficiently quick for most uses. It is true that it is its weakest side and the camera is not ideal for sports photography or if you have hyperkinetic kids jumping around. But it is good enough for many uses!
Unlike many other cameras, this one is actually very natural and classic in use (for an old school photographer like me), and the output quality is truly remarkable.

Another armchair expert. If you like the Olympus buy one. I don't get why Oly users are so insecure.

As for the D7000, I owned one and there is no comparison. The IQ is far better on the Fuji, especially over ISO200.

Except the lenses and IQ are actually pretty good. I know because I´ve used an X Pro for several months. I´ve also used cameras by Minolta, Hasselblad, Nikon and Olympus. I´m not a fan boy. In fact I find fan boy-ism psycholigcally baffling. But the lenses are pretty good for the price though the 17mm is a bit of a weak link compared to to the 14mm, 35mm and 60mm (zoom I haven´t used). Perhaps you´d like to say specifically which Sigma lens designs they are based on giving evidence for your reasons? Or are perhaps we are just yanking everyone´s chain and wasting time because someone doesn´t have anything better to do? It´s amazing how people have to justify their own life choices by refusing to accept anyone can choose something different. Must be an existential thing. Anyway, since it´s a nice day here in Seville and my work is closed for the Andalucia day holiday I´m going to take my X Pro and take some photos. Rather than comment meaninglessly on cameras I´ve never used.

I had D7000 for a year, it has strong AA filter, need good lenses. OMD? LOL as long as the sensor is smaller, no way it's comparable to Fuji's X Trans. The problem with Fuji is just that there is no optimal RAW converter...making it a high end jpg camera.

Yes, I can read and understand at the same time.

This is a Camera Review, NOT a Sensor Review.

The whole package (eg. the Camera) does not deserve a Gold Award.

And the small, cheap, LCD does not make for "for superior ergonomics".

Nikonworks, I'm surprised you aren't moaning about the screen... I thought that was the worst thing manufactured since the Ford Edsel??? Oh I see you managed that in follow up...

ogl, really? Capture One must just have been a fluke for these two:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8088/8435975557_9d4732e030_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8084/8435974921_4233536a0c_o.jpg