Fujifilm X-T10 Review

If you're not doing video, I'd say the X-t10.

Feb 22, 2017permalink

ActX

Thank you DPREVIEW! You just saved me a lot of money. I normally shot a Canon 5DsR and wanted a smaller travel companion. I compared the image quality of the XT-10 and various Olympus & Lumix offerings using your lab testing tool. The X-T10 was better hands down. Then I rembered that I had a Canon G7X laying around. I'm only interested in real world results and since I do a lot of A2 printing I compared the X-T10 to the G7X where I hade to up-scale the X-T10 get the same print size at 300 dpi. At these settings it turns out the G7X is better than the X-T10 even when you pixel peep. This apply to the native ISO which is where I find myself 99% of the time. Instead of spending 2000+ USD for camera and lenses I can now use my 24-100 mm GX7 and only spend money on a table top tripod. In printing up to A2 I actually have a hard time to distinguish my 5DsR files from the ones coming from the G7X.

Oct 20, 2016*permalink

Just going through this review, and I'm impressed by the performance (According to the review, but have yet to take on out for a "test drive" myself). The one part that bothers me the most is that the reviewer focuses on the OOC JPEGs, and I guess that's fine, but many people (at least the ones I know) don't use the OOC JPEGs that much and much rather work with the RAW files, I hope that Adobe has fixed whatever issues there were for this camera by now as I'm seriously considering one. I would probably be getting the better 18-55 f/2.8-4 if I do for the low-light performance. I'm also wondering about print size, if someone can verify the largest print you can expect before distortion or loss of quality occurs. I don't expect to print large (as most of my work will be for on-screen use/viewing), but may ocassionaly like to print a 11x17 print or something around that size. 16MP is, however, the lowest I would go in terms of resolution, despite it's advantages in pixel size.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

I have printed 20x30 with a 12 mp camera lol.

Feb 22, 2017permalink

I'm not saying you can't print images with a 12MP, but the question then becomes how good is the quality of those prints (image quality) in particular, for the media and viewing intent. If it's smaller, then 12MP might be fine, but 12MP might not be enough for a large reprint (say 4x3 ft)...

Feb 22, 2017permalink

@sirhawkeye64 I wouldn't push 12 mp much past 20x30. Although there are options to upres.

However I am someone that loves printing, and I print a fair bit. Very rarely is anything past 20x30 used by people. 4 by 3 feet is quite large and people don't usually dedicate that much real estate to one picture.

I would be fine pushing past 20x30 with 16mp, although I haven't had cause to.

Feb 25, 2017permalink

I was just using 12MP as an example.... I agree that anything more than what you said wouldn't be a good print (unless modifications to the image were made, but even then so, that might not be enough). Heck, even my 16-24MP shots from my DSLR(s) I don't like to print much beyond 11x17. But also most of my images are processed for screen viewing (I've only done a handful that were targeted specifically for printing).

Feb 27, 2017permalink

You have to sharpen a little more, and I find prints come out darker for some reason. But I HAVE printed a 12mp cameras image to 20x30 and it looks great and gets compliments.

Mar 1, 2017permalink

Don't get me wrong... I like the XT10 when I had it, but the one thing that sort of bothered me was the 16MP. And since I do landscapes mostly (and the Fuji was intended to be a backup/second camera to my D750), I was looking for something with a bit higher resolution (to allow enough pixels for sufficient cropping etc). I'm looking at the XT20 now, since they gave it a 24MP sensor. The only other concern is the cost of glass, where I'd have to invest in another lens system....

Mar 1, 2017permalink

We have come (too) far when ISO 6400 is "rather limiting" in Raw mode. For all intended purposes – quite literally – 6400 is miles and miles and miles past what anyone needs, 99 % of the time. And that goes for anyone who holds a camera – with professional photography it's even less true. Someone who calls herself/himself a professional photographer, and claims she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is of course not a professional photographer.

May 27, 2016permalink

I needed it tonight. I was taking pictures indoors at night with a long zoom at f/5. Yeah, I know - the solution is to get a faster long zoom. But those can get pretty expensive. I was at ISO 6400 and was wishing my d7000 didn't totally fall apart at higher ISOs.

Nov 11, 2016permalink

But that's kind of the problem here. Photographers (of all kinds, me included unfortunately) wish all their cameras wouldn't "totally fall apart at higher ISOs". I would love for my little point-and-shoot to do noiseless 102,400 ISO – and I'm sure that in a decade or so that's close to reality. But isn't that just vulgar? Isn't photography about finding and using light? Photography is NOT about going to dark places with expensive equipment hoping for excellent results. Work around your limitations, be creative, don't go around waiting for Canon announcements about new, higher ISO capabilities.

Feb 28, 2017permalink

So, then I should just lower my expectations for what is possible?

Mar 7, 2017permalink

I do not know, you can expect whatever you want, whatever makes you happy. Just don't claim you're limited by ISO 6400. If you feel you are, maybe a change in perspective (or method) is the way to go. My original sentiment still stands:

A good or professional photographer claiming she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is not a good nor professional photographer, sorry.

Mar 12, 2017permalink

Then the D4 and D5 should have come topped out at ISO 6400. Yet somehow people (even professionals) talk about how good it is at higher ISOs. Gasp! How could it be - why would they even bother with those ISOs. Well - they must suck.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

TLRDemon

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.

May 24, 2017permalink

So we didn't have pro photojournalism work pre-ISO 6400? I don't even get why I bother arguing here, because this is too stupid. I suspect you think that I think ISO 6400 and above is bad or unnecessary. That is of course not the case. It is unequivocally a good thing to have the choice of shooting at for instance ISO 1000000 (or above). I just called out the ridiculousness of claiming that it's limiting to photographers (and I define this as the average working photographer) to shoot at ISO 6400 or below. OF COURSE it can be limiting to SOME photographers SOMETIMES. But to claim it as a general limitation is dumb.

Jul 5, 2017permalink

Doug Pardee

Going simply from the camera's manual, I believe the following is misleading: "In my limiting testing of the X-T10's subject tracking capabilities across the frame using AF-C [a bunch of stuff] Furthermore, when the camera is set to Wide/Tracking, it only uses contrast detect AF. "

According to the manual, the contrast-detect-only AF is for AF-S, Wide mode. As far as I can tell, in AF-C (Tracking mode) the phase-detect sensors are still used.

Notably, in CH burst mode, *only* the phase-detect sensors are used. That significantly limits the area of the viewfinder that the subject can be tracked across during a high-speed burst.

May 2, 2016*permalink

PaulDavis

Picked this body up along with the 35f2, 90f2, and 16f1.4 today. I have been a long time Sony fanboy and shoot the A7 with most of the FE lenses. I bought the Fuji as a second system to use. I went with Fuji because of the great lens selection, sizes, and prices. Plus the camera puts all the controls at your finger tips. It has only been one day but I feel like selling all my sony gear and going all out fuji. I need to wait for the honeymoon period to end but dang, this is a great camera to shoot with. My only gripe is that it is so small and has almost no finger grip so the 90mm makes your wrist and fingers tired only after a short time. I ordered the fuji grip for it so hopefully that helps. I see an x-t2 in my future.

Mar 16, 2016permalink

Any followup thoughts on xt10 vs ff Sony? IQ , body controls, handling, AF speed?

Apr 25, 2016permalink

PaulDavis

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.

Apr 25, 2016*permalink

tombell1

Such beautiful cameras. I use an X100 ....love the files. However the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker for me.
Hold with Pentax and Olympus for me as I find this makes a huge difference to me.
Lovely camera though

Nov 10, 2016permalink

Photofix101

Ive been using this body for a few weeks now and can pleasingly report that this camera paired with Fuji lenses is incredible. Here's my summary:
1) The body is easy to get used to, buttons fully programable, and feels small but ok in the hand. The only gripe I have is that the SD position is less optimal than the XT1. You can program any button to replace the dedicated ISO button if you want.
2) the files are very good, either jpeg of raw. I'm using LR to process raw files, and use few presets.
3) The lenses i have are the 18-55 f2.8-4, the 35mm f1.4 & the 50-200 f3.5-5.6. All of them render incredible results. They all surprised on the upside. The 18-55 is very very sharp - the sharpest kit lens I've tested. The 50-200 is comparable to my 70-200 f4 Canon, and I've shot sports with this lens and XT10 with extremely good results, despite the smaller buffer than the XT1. The 35mm is about as good as you'll get. No words describe how good this lens is.

Nov 19, 2015permalink

Emadn13

why you dont talk about the problems??
i mean the biggest,waxy skin tone problem
this is the only thing that dont let me buy a fuji

Nov 13, 2015permalink

agreed on the skintone waxiness. Other colors are dull, can't even bring then to normal shooting RAW format. They have a long way to go to get to the level of Canon as far as color goes.

Nov 17, 2015permalink

Emadn13

yes i agreed,and its more expensive than the others like a6000 or em10 mkII,and for the camera that has in body wifi it's a shame that you cant take any jpegs above 1600 ISO,its useless in parties or indoor jpeg shooting

Nov 17, 2015permalink

Valiant Thor

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.

Dec 15, 2015permalink

Davidbailey

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.

Dec 31, 2015permalink

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

Jan 2, 2016*permalink

I have noticed waxiness even converting with Capture, not sure if Adobe is the problem here.

May 16, 2016permalink

RStyga

Any information on the digital split image focusing of this camera?

Oct 29, 2015permalink

rickytj

I have just bought X-T10 yesterday (along with the kit lens) !! and this is my first ever interchangeable lens camera :D

My question is, how good is it for photographing Milky Way? Anyone has some samples?

Thank you !

Oct 28, 2015permalink

As long as you have the right lens its good, i suggest googling "milky way calculator"

Jan 2, 2016permalink

And the wider the lens in mm the better as well as the lower fstop example: 2.8 instead of 5.6

Jan 2, 2016permalink

One more thing to ad for Fuji is touchscreen. I would like there to be an option to tap where you want to focus and take a photo in one single tap.

Would like to see an updated sensor in the next year's model and an improved af speed & accuracy.

I personally wish for a magical af adapter for nikon and canon mount lenses, which I have plenty of.

Cameras operating system is still laggy at times, my camera gets confused when I want it to wake up so I have to turn it on and off all the time... What's that all about Fuji?

Oct 21, 2015*permalink

I just bought this camera and I would like to list all the problems I have encountered for which I think there should be an update:

1. RAW files are 32mb, we need a compressed RAW file
2. AF-L doesn't work in Face Detection Mode
3. Face detection mode isn't reliable

I wonder if fuji guys are reading these comments...

Lightroom RAW converter isn't good for Fuji, what are these guys doing...? Im going to cancel my subscription as soon as I figure out what to do with RAF files. I am thinking of going with Capture One at this moment.

Otherwise it's an outstanding camera!!!

Sep 30, 2015*permalink

CBlais

Try Iridient, it works just great with Fuji files.
http://www.iridientdigital.com/

Oct 1, 2015permalink

The Irident developer contacted me and a windows version is coming very soon.

Jan 2, 2016permalink

James Luidl

Buffer limited during 8fps burst. - WAH! How many bursts do you need all at once.

Maximum ISO limited to 6400 - WAH! When do you need to shoot at 6400 ISO. I've shot film and digital for years and still rarely go over 800, 1600 at night.

Poor video quality - WAH! You bought this for video? Fool.

No touchscreen - WAH! Just WAH! My Minolta SRT doesn't have one either, you don't hear me complaining.

16mp is out resolved by other cameras. - WAH! Fuji has shown its sensor can hang with the big boys. But really, how many photographers are doing 20x30+ prints using this camera.

Man up, learn to use the camera. Be realistic about your expectations and don't sweat the cosmetic hype.

Sep 28, 2015*permalink

Palladium5

Actually i do want to make large prints using this camera, at least 17" x 22". I haven't bought one yet. Still researching.

Oct 22, 2015permalink

photocrunch

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.

Nov 6, 2015permalink

Davidbailey

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.

Dec 31, 2015permalink

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.

Jan 2, 2016permalink

PhotonTrapper

I agree 100% with your points, except the last one.

Sensor resolution does not affect only printing. It also helps, among other things, with cropping which is important to some, like me, who use this as a surrogate for longer focal lengths. So I would prefer the sensor to use the full potential resolution offered by the glass in front of it, or as close as possible. I am not confident 16 Mp is enough to use most of Fuji lenses resolving power (which I would pay for and need).

Jan 31, 2016*permalink

ianjoc

Brought this to my Italy trip last week. I wanted to bring my 5DMIII but was worried since I'll be walking around and didn't want to carry all that weight. Didn't regret bringing the X-T10 at all! I was very happy with the images it produced.

Sep 17, 2015permalink

VernonPhilander

nice cam

Sep 16, 2015permalink

MattLangley

I own neither a x-t10 or an a6000, but your comments on the final words comparing them honestly don't seem too objective.

Basically it sounds like the Sony is better in nearly every objective measurement minus EVF and *maybe* build quality. Also you say they launched at similar prices, but that means nothing, right now you can get an XT10 body for $800 and an a6000 body for $450. Even if the Fuji drops $50-$100 in the next month or so that's still a huge price difference, comparing a historical price to a current price makes no sense.

To me this all sounds of the Fuji is "cooler" to use but less capable (using your own word). For some reason since Fuji ha been launching retro designed cameras I've seen this distortion field around comparisons, as if this retro cool factor somehow factors into an objective camera comparison beyond a single area of comparing the look and design.

Sep 15, 2015permalink

These comparisons aren't as objective as you'd hope. Nobody uses cameras "objectively" either. We aren't objective creatures, we are meatsacks with grubby hands and mushy brains and we have to hold stuff and look at stuff and think about stuff to shoot, some people do all of that differently, in fact. We also have aesthetic preferences, which do matter to us and others around us in many cases.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

MattLangley

Though I mostly agree with you, due to everyone being so extremely subjective it's *that* much more important for reviewers to compartmentalize their objective and subjective aspects of the reviews. It's fine saying that you really dig the look and feel of the Fuji personally, but when you say objectively the a6000 is more capable and refuse to compare the actual market price (where the a6000 is nearly half the price or 2/3rds even minus an expected Fuji price drop in the near future by retailers) and they say they are a toss up, well that seems like a horrible comparison summary to me.

I'd be perfectly fine with something along the lines of I personally would have a hard time choosing but right now you can get the a6000 an overall more capable camera significantly cheaper, etc... Instead I got the toss up vibe based mostly on personal preference and though I want to see that in a review a skilled reviewer can communicate both separately.

Sep 21, 2015permalink

Fair point about contextualizing the emotional aspects of a review, but it seems to me they are already doing that. You pointed out that they admit the Sony is more capable, what more do you need? If capability is your main concern then your decision is made and you can ponder the mysteries of why some people would choose Fuji later.

Personally I'm glad reviewers take time to describe the Fuji cameras aesthetic/emotional properties. I bought a NEX 6 because it was so capable but it had no soul and I preferred my old Rebel so I returned it. For people who do photography for love or just want to love their cameras the Fuji's offer a very real value in that the cameras somehow make people feel happier than other brands.

Sep 23, 2015permalink

QizmoGeek

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.

Nov 13, 2015permalink

Khairil

Yeah, the greatest difference is in the AF performance of A6000. I wonder why Fuji changes their kit lens, from the super sharp (best kit lens hands down compared to other brands imho) F2.8-4 18-55mm to this 'almost the same as other kit lens' normal F3.5-5.6 16-50mm. This was the cool factor that made me buy the older (and much cheaper)XE1 / XE2 compared to A6000. Better lens = better IQ, well, strictly in the kit lens / package-buy category at least.

Jan 6, 2016permalink

PatsyK

they sell the xt-10 with two kit options, the 18-55 with set you back an extra $300. The 16-50 is said to be as sharp as the 18-55 but is slower with light and lighter.

Jan 27, 2016*permalink

Seagull67

Great camera - far prefer the ergonomics of it to the X100S or XE1 I had previously. Feels very good in the hand: compact, light and stable. I only shoot jpegs and they're excellent once you've played with the settings to suit your taste. Superficial stuff but the camera looks far better in the all black version.

Aug 28, 2015permalink

I love how the silver+black version looks, so we disagree only in that I like both colors :D

Personally I liked the rangefinder format of the X-E1 better, and wish the X-T10 was a bit wider, but the extra dial on the top plate is really valuable so it's worth it. The DRIVE menu on the X-E1 was a nightmare and had way too much stuff in it.

Sep 23, 2015permalink

David Smith - Photographer

People usually think im shooting film when i had the x100s so they did not ask me to remove my "roll" out lol :)

Jan 2, 2016permalink

wouterv

So how's the AF performance of the X-T10 compared to the Nikon D5500? Especially in low(er) light situations?

Aug 19, 2015permalink

brendon1000

In still photography and good light the XT10 should be neck and neck with the Nikon probably even faster. As the light goes down the Fuji will probably start to be a few ms behind the Nikon.

However in CAF the Nikon will be noticeably better in tracking accuracy. Its also easier to track with an optical viewfinder.

Do note that I haven't extensively used either camera and these are my personal opinions only.

Aug 28, 2015permalink

The Fuji X series cameras are not known for their excellent autofocus. For me the autofocus speed is fast enough, but the accuracy is a bit of a let down. The X-T10 misses a little too often (so do the other Fuji cameras). Try to take multiple shots of a subject in dim artificial light. Even when you don't move the camera, a lot of shots will be out of focus.

Aug 29, 2015permalink

Alphabart

Autofocus on Fuji X is very good for mirrorless. However, we need the next generation to match up or beat dslr's like the D5500. And then with some super Fuji updates we can maybe get close to a D750 focus wise... that's 2016/2017.... So it's a good time to invest in a camera. I sold all my nikon stuff and have been shooting for 6 months Fuji only. Wonderfull stuff it does, but AF is one thing that will improve towards dslr the coming year. its not there yet... But I don;t need fast focus, its fast enough to get my kids on a photo. the rest is studio and portrait for me, and some weddings

Sep 16, 2015permalink

David Smith - Photographer

Lower light d5500 wins, i used it in low light with a 70-200 f4 shooting ice hockey, it kept up. How low? With a full frame im at iso 5000 + 1/1000 f4

Jan 2, 2016*permalink

ijustloveshooting

jpegs are dead. no fine detail due to agressive nr even at the lowest iso...16mp outdated sensor..competitors are way above it in both resolution and DR...price is too much for what is offered.

Aug 18, 2015permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

That's not my experience.

Aug 24, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 29, 2015permalink

ijustloveshooting

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.

Aug 29, 2015permalink

David Smith - Photographer

I was shooting RAW but now I am going to shoot jpeg + RAW. I will try not to do any post production, since all the editing can be done on the fly.

Thanx Fuji for that!

Sep 30, 2015permalink

@ijustloveshooting: You are not comparing apples to apples here. A useless comparison. Don't compare an APSC sensor to a full frame sensor that also has a higher pixel count.

Nov 5, 2015permalink

Monkeyboy Photography

i work with a company who is the fuji supplier for the UK and i love this camera the lightweight body and the way it is easy to set up. there are some things that need changing on it to make it 100% but this is a good camera to change from if you want a lightweight decent camera!

Aug 18, 2015permalink

Mark Bergman

Custom settings - have you configured some custom configuration your find productive and time saving? How about sharing your settings so less experienced photographers might benefit?

Aug 17, 2015permalink

The "Custom Settings" feature is pretty useless in Fuji cameras unfortunately, because it can only save a few settings and they are mostly the JPG-only ones that have no effect on RAW files (DR, Film sim, Highlights etc.).

Because you can't name them, and the active one isn't displayed during use (only during selection) they are barely useful even if you want to save sets of the allowed settings. Personally I find it more of a hindrance than a help, and with the configurable Q menu on the X-T10 (and other recent Fuji cameras) I'd rather just remove it entirely so I don't accidentally trigger it.

Instead I set up my Q menu with duplicates of the actual settings I want to use so that it's faster to access them when needed.

If you weren't referring to the "Save Custom Settings" feature then sorry, there are a lot of useful features in the camera that we could talk about, most of them just can't be saved as sets :)

Aug 17, 2015permalink

All that said, here's the one set of settings I found useful in "Save Custom Settings": Manual flash settings for use with my YN-560 manual flashgun.

ISO: 200
White Balance: Daylight

In the end I didn't use it very often though, since it was only two settings and I started gelling my flashes to match ambient light rather than depending on WB:Daylight :P

Aug 17, 2015permalink

Mark Bergman

Most requested missing feature - I've owned my X-T10 since the first day is was deliverable. As an alternative to my Nikon D7100, it is doing a nice job. Low noise at high ISO for available light photos, half the weight of my Nikon (which I use regularly). So my first call to tech support was to inquire about the photo review feature. When one uses the electronic viewfinder, the only way to review the photo just taken is via the viewfinder. The camera will not switch to the LED display to allow us to "chimp" the photo. Tech support says "no the camera has no such setting and this is the most often requested feature request they receive".

Aug 17, 2015permalink

You'll get used to it! The feature you want isn't really needed by users of the camera, the only reason they would include it is to satisfy DSLR converts who aren't used to EVF yet.

How would it be better to remove the camera from your eye and use the LCD to review? It would be slower, you would lose your composition and the LCD is WAY lower resolution than the EVF, so even for reviewing fine detail it's better (try it someday when you are reviewing photos, the EVF lets you assess fine detail better, though it's uncomfortable to use it for long periods).

Just remind yourself that reviewing in the EVF is the obvious choice with a mirrorless camera like the X-T10, you'll learn to appreciate the smoothness of the experience.

Aug 17, 2015permalink

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 ;)

Aug 17, 2015permalink

Mark Bergman

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.

Aug 17, 2015permalink

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!

Aug 17, 2015permalink

xeriwthe

how bizarre, my (now) ages old fuji x100s allows reviewing images in both EVF and back LCD. what use is the back LCD if not for playback? fuji sometimes makes the most bizarre design compromises

Aug 18, 2015permalink

@xeriwthe My impression is you are joking around and trying to point out that all the cameras can "review" images on the LCD by going into playback mode. Is that right?

If so my impression was that OP wanted the INSTANT review to happen on the LCD, like it would on a DSLR, not just playback review.

Fuji has never had a way to do instant review on the LCD (i.e. no review in EVF, but if you look at the LCD the image will be there for a couple seconds). There's a good reason why they never would have even considered it too: The original cameras were totally slow at switching from EVF to LCD and basically froze for a second each time you did so. Instant review on the LCD would have been so slow and buggy people would probably have thought it wasn't an intended feature :S

Aug 20, 2015permalink

xeriwthe

Got it, understood now what the request is. I thought it was insane they would remove photo playback on LCD

Aug 23, 2015permalink

FUJI has been using the same old SONY 16MP APS-C sensor almost from FUJI's first Mirror-less years ago.

When will SONY update FUJI's sensor?

Aug 14, 2015*permalink

watson076

Yes, but the sensor is also one of the best. I own both the current 24 mp sensor and a camera with the 16. The 16 is honestly better. The 24 mp sensor shows noise even at base ISO. The color IMHO is better from the 16 as well. I dunno, I think 16 was the magic number, but that's just my opinion. I also don't understand why people want more megapixels. More MP=earlier diffraction limits.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

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

Aug 14, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

>>> "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.

Aug 15, 2015*permalink

broody

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.

Aug 18, 2015permalink

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

FWIW: per DXO's scores:

- NEX6 = 78
- D7000 = 80
- A6000 = 82

BTW: For some (well known?) reasons, DXO dos not test Fuji for years.

Aug 24, 2015permalink

Cren

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

Sep 9, 2015permalink

Khairil

End of the day, the end product (image quality) that counts. Super duper 100 megapixel sensor whatever, go down the drain if can't beat the 16mp old sensor of Fuji image quality...And image quality is not SOLELY due to sensor pixel & AF, but also good glass..

Oct 16, 2015permalink

AlpCns2

Tempting system. Oh so very, very tempting. And that gorgeous glass... Fuji is doing a lot of things very, very right.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

watson076

I got tempted and pushed the button at Amazon. This is my first Fuji coming from Canon, Nikon, and Olympus (and also had the Sony a6000). I can tell you the reputation is everything I expected and more. I was quite skeptical about the 'Fuji look' and Fuji JPEGs, but let me tell you the image quality is nothing like I have ever seen before. Having just sold my Canon 6D, I can tell you the Fuji beats it across the board. Samples on the web don't do it justice, you have to use one for yourself - oh and that EVF - it's stunning.

Aug 14, 2015*permalink

ijustloveshooting

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

Aug 18, 2015permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

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

Aug 24, 2015permalink

ijustloveshooting: largely it's due to sharpening and NR, since most people (sensibly) aren't looking at the jpegs at 100%. Turn down or off the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening and it significantly improves at full size. DPR doesn't compare jpegs using those settings. The film simulation also matters.

Sep 16, 2015*permalink

bitturai

good one

Aug 13, 2015permalink

robertbrockmann

Video capabilities should not be taken into account when reviewing Fujifilm cameras. I know of no Fuji shooter who bought a Fuji camera to shoot video. Fujis are for taking photographs. Period. The video buttons on my 3 Fujis (the first one bough in 2010) are virgin.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

taktak91

Same thing can be said for Olympus and Nikon cameras.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

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

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.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Sakini

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.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

DavidOB

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:

Aug 17, 2015permalink

X30 just might have BETTER video than the X-T10 because it doesn't use the X-Trans array on the sensor, it (along with the X-A2) uses a standard bayer array. At least you won't have toxic moiré caused by the lack of AA filter.

Aug 18, 2015permalink

Revenant

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.

Aug 19, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 20, 2015permalink

Sakini

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.

Aug 20, 2015permalink

Paul Petersen

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.

Sep 12, 2015permalink

ScottTomlinson

Also, context for video is key. Does this camera produce video that compares to that of leading DSLRs? No. Does it produce video that will exceed pretty much every casual user's expectations? Yes. Remember it wasn't too many years ago you had to buy a separate device to record even CRAPPY video.

Nov 6, 2015permalink

Walsh_uk

I bought an X-T10 with XC 16-50 & second hand 27mm pancake prior to a holiday in the states, my wife refused to let me drag along my 5D3 and all the baggage that goes with it, so glad she did, I shot Jpegs for 3 weeks, never chimped , never got the urge to check my progress apart from a few lunch time wifi uploads to fb via iphone, I can honestly say I am blown away by the quality of this little camera, well worth 500 quid.

There are haters on here, plenty of them, they spend all their free time bitching, pixel peeping & pet photographing.

For those sat on the fence looking for a small form factor quality camera the X-T10 & 27mm pancake will fit a baggy front trouser/shorts pocket..

Aug 12, 2015permalink

Or put the 35mm f/1.4 on there and be able to take a picture of anything anywhere. That's my favorite one-lens. Not pocketable by any means, but shockingly capable of sharpness and making things glow in low light.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

mrullmi

Great review, as always.

I was wondering about your statement that "All the reasons that make the X-Trans sensor great for stills, make it not so good for video" — could you please elaborate on that?
For example, does the bayer pattern allow for a video-optimized sensor readout that is not possible with a X-Trans pattern? More importantly, does this mean that there is little hope of seeing a firmware update that will address the video issues?

Aug 12, 2015permalink

The sensor pattern is designed to naturally avoid moiré without the need for an "AA" filter between the lens and the sensor, which gives you extra sharpness.

That same pattern seems to not help at all with moiré in video, so unlike with stills any fine texture (grates, blinds, stripes and even denim) end up having distracting distortions ("optical illusions" recorded by the sensor) moving around in them.

Maybe Fuji could improve the situation with software, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. The solution for stills is "hardwired" into the sensor, so the solution for video probably needs to be physical as well.

Of course, moiré isn't the only problem with Fuji video, there's a host of bad UI choices that make it nearly useless regardless of the distortions, but moiré is the part being referred to by "all the reasons"...

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Dr_Jon

I wonder as it's presumably a generic Sony 16MP sensor (as per D5100) whether the issue is the different Colour Filter Array really screws with using the on-sensor video hardware, which is presumably optimised to combine pixels assuming a Bayer array?

Aug 13, 2015permalink

mrullmi

Thanks for your replies.
In that case, would a "cropped" video mode that uses only the central, 1080p-sized portion of the sensor, be a possible solution? Presumably, using only part of the sensor's pixels would reduce the data rate, such that proper demosaicing would be feasible in real time at 24 FPS?
...then again, I don't know how the sensor readout actually works, and maybe it is not possible to read out only part of the sensor data.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

Fujifilm said in interviews that video is one of their main focuses for their next generation of cameras (probably meaning X-Pro 2 and beyond).

The main problem according to their engineers is sensor readout speed. A higher readout speed means that the image data is available sooner for things like downscaling, autofocus, various processing steps (as well as lowering noise and improving DR), things which all must be done at high speed for video. Their CFA pattern is notoriously difficult to create an efficient and accurate demosaicing algorithm for, and since sensor output for video must be downscaled (which is performance-intensive) before being recorded, readout and processing speed is critical.

I think the problem with Fuji's current video implementation is that they compromise demosaicing to save time, leading to artifacts from the unique CFA. The balance between battery life, image quality and processing speed is tough for these cameras, but should improve in the future.

Sep 16, 2015*permalink

mrullmi: Cropped video is definitely possible, but most people wouldn't want to crop to 1080p (approx. 8x crop). You would zoom in quite a bit, as well as losing some detail and messing with DOF. The output would be similar to what you see when using the magnification button for manual focus.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

User6553405381

A great little camera, X-T10 :)

I bought two and used them regularly for six weeks while travelling, and it was just great. 50-140/2.8 on one; 10-24/4 on the other; hardly a missed shot, and the pictures came out great and just as expected (I have some experience with Fuji X).

Brought along a 5D mkIII just in case, but hardly ever used it. So in the future this is my travelling gear, the whole Fuji kit (feels like it) weighs less than 5D with 70-200/2.8, and even if the Fuji kit will not replace my Canon gear altoghether, X-T10 is a bargain if you want high iq and easy (still; I don't do video) shooting in a small and light package.

I find the user interface on X-T10 better than X-T1, never got used to all the double dials on the latter. The X-T10 feels smaller in hand than the X-T1 for a minute or two, then you never think about it again. No problem using a big lens like 50-140 on it.

Aug 11, 2015permalink

Clearly, it's COOKED RAW ! ! !

Aug 10, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

Most things are cooked from raw

Aug 10, 2015permalink

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!

Aug 11, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

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

Aug 11, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Re: cooked raw, everyone cooks their RAWs to varying degrees; it's a necessary step in recording the image data properly. There are several steps to RAW capture, including readout from the sensor, signal amplification, quantization, compression, demosaicing; when shooting JPEG there is also gamma adjustment, tone curves, noise reduction, sharpening, further compression, local contrast adjustment in some cases, etc.

I think Thom Hogan (bythom.com) knows a bit about this sort of thing, and IIRC according to him Nikon does do something or other regarding noise reduction to their RAW files. I am not sure what Canon does, since their RAWs are frankly ugly. M4/3 cameras surely do various tricks, but I don't know what. Fuji seems to use add noise reduction as ISO grows, especially color NR, but they are the only ones who don't use any RAW compression (thus their huge 30MB files and short burst counts). Sony is the worst, and uses lossy compression, a broken quantization algorithm + NR.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

ealvarez

Is there any other APSC camera that shoot JPEG this good OOC, with interchangeable lens option, with so many quality lens options available, in this form factor (small with built in flash, a hot shoe, flippy screen) at this price point? I think X-T10 should get gold like A6000. I know it has better AF system and video, but Fuji lens kit (and lens availability) and JPEG quality should even it out. And also since this is digital camera review not digital video camera review, image and lens quality should have much more weight than a video feature in determining the final score.

Aug 9, 2015permalink

DPR has a policy that cameras are marked against similar category cameras and not all cameras, for the obvious reason that comparing the 5DS v. OMD EM10 just makes no sense.

In that context it would be nice if DPR stated the score excludes video then gave X-T10 what it deserves as a still camera.

Either way though who really cares. If you read the review you know that they love this camera, that they love the stills and that it's a nuanced tool that doesn't excel at everything. The score is fair IMHO. I love my Fuji but when people ask it's often not what I recommend.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Kiril Karaatanasov

The eye sensors are easily corrected if one feels a problem with them. I have done it on A7 and A6000. Just a tiny piece of black tape over part of the sensor.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

Are Fuji still cheating with ISO on this camera as they've been found to do systematically on other models in the X line over the past few years?

Aug 8, 2015permalink

So does Olympus.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

flysurfer

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.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 9, 2015*permalink

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.

Aug 9, 2015permalink

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?

Aug 9, 2015*permalink

kodachromeguy

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?

Aug 10, 2015permalink

AlpCns2

And? Photography is no longer possible, now?

Aug 13, 2015permalink

I don't understand this, because my experience with an X-E1 is that it often underexposed by around 1/3 stop, choosing too low of an ISO by the same amount compared to other cameras (though I don't dispute anyone's claims, it was probably just my sample). That's the opposite of what should happen if they are cheating on ISO: the ISO should match but the shutter speed would be low.

That aside, boost a Fuji RAW by 1/3 or 2/3 EV and see if it makes a difference (esp. after noise reduction). Below ISO 6400, it probably won't, since as stated by DPR the noise performance beats most other cameras so they do have some leeway, cheating or no. Their RAWs are malleable re: exposure to the extent where I just don't care if it underexposes even by several stops, unless the histogram is piled on the left at proper exposure (eg. night shooting). Still, I've had little trouble processing slightly underexposed ISO 6400 RAWs (even using the in-camera JPEG engine) into something nice. YMMV, as always.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

Yes but a photog did a test in iceland and by brightening the image up to the same as a canon 760d the noise levels were identical.

Jan 2, 2016permalink

gautham 09

nice one

Aug 8, 2015permalink

Deardorff

No Optical finder, no thanks.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

Thermidor

Is it even possible to mount a correct optical viewfinder on a mirrorless system? I know you could theoretically mount one on the hot shoe, but I doubt it will be a correct reproduction. of the view from the sensor.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

hifimacianer

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

Aug 7, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

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.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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

Aug 7, 2015permalink

Tomasz_Wk

Buy a DLSR then...

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

kodachromeguy

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?

Aug 10, 2015permalink

Deardorff

Because I still use my F2 and F 3 bodies.
Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.
Because I like optical finders as well as the ground glass on my larger cameras.

Add in the X10 body is just too damn small. The X-Pro1 was tolerable but the smaller bodies are almost impossible for some of us to use if we have larger hands.

Aug 11, 2015permalink

> Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.

Some people might be extra sensitive to this, but for me at least, the current high-refresh-rate EVF screens make this a complete non-issue. If you're basing your opinion on last decade's EVF, I encourage you to look again.

> Add in the X10 body is just too damn small.

Note that we're talking about the X-T10, not the X10, which is a very different compact camera. But assuming you mean tthe X-T10... sure. It's not big. You may prefer the X-T1.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Deardorff

Tried the X-T1 and the finder is the problem. Size as well. The 1 Series Canons are the right size for my hands.
When I try friends lit up creen/finder cameras at night and in dimly lit places they destroy my night vision.
I'll stick with optical finders as they work for me.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Deadorff: I know exactly what you mean about the screen brightness destroying night vision, it is frustrating and also makes judging the proper WB harder. I get around that by reducing the EVF/screen brightness as low as it goes before going night shooting, which mostly fixes the problem unless it's nearly pitch black (though in that case, an optical finder has its own drawbacks).

The other side to that is that you can more properly visualize the scene at the exposure you want with an EVF at night, whereas with optical, what you see is probably *not* what you get unless you are being very careful about meteringl. With something like the A7S, you also practically have nightvision. Nice for astrophotography.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

ET2

Why no studio still shots for video?

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Weird colors ? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt10&attr13_1=nikon_d7200&attr13_2=canon_eos7dii&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.5591776385270717&y=-0.8163225036710718

See their other Fujifilm reviews for that; it should be largely unchanged.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

Lassoni

Aug 6, 2015*permalink

ofquiet

Isn't it weird that the X-T10 and the a6000 both scored 80%, but the Fuji got a silver award and the Sony got a gold for the exact same score?

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Richard Butler

Not really. If you read the explanation of the scoring system, you'll find out what it means.

The simplest way of to explain is that the score is calculated mainly from objective assessments of the camera. Click to compare the two cameras in the scoring widget and you'll discover that they both achieved 80% very differently.

The award is the reviewer's assessment, based on their experience of it and its peers, and focused on the kinds of photographers we believe will be looking at the camera (these expectations should be spelled out in the review).

There isn't an exact match between the two: otherwise the award would just tell you the same information with less precision. However, there is a connection: it's unlikely a low scoring camera could be so well-suited to a group of shooters that it could still get an award or that a camera that scores really highly would be considered so unsuitable by the reviewer to not get one.

Aug 6, 2015*permalink

Thermidor

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.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

Kiril Karaatanasov

I would believe Sony is better choice for Manual Focus lenses. Just peaking and othe r MF aids work a bit better.

Still the Fuji ergonomics as you say are very very nice and do tempt me quite a bit.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

kadardr

X-T10 is an ugly duckling which will never grow to be a swan compared to X-T1. Neither of them is for raw shooters though.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Don Sata

The RAW files have very good shadow and highlight detail, they are extremely malleable.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Lassoni

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

Aug 6, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

The idea that Fuji cameras aren't for RAW shooters is pretty silly. The RAW files are great and Lightroom support for the film simulations makes it fun and easy to get somewhere great without too much work.

You can also start from bare grey RAW like Canon gives you, if you enjoy processing every single shot.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Stephan Def

I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).

If one can use a TV screen & do post-processing in-camera without the need for an addtional computer & software then that is a huge benefit for any user.

I don't think Fujifilm has to jump on the 4K bandwagon, just decent enough Video qualtiy would be good. Also the ability to record a short sound clip with a still image is very nice to have and would be technically easy to do.

What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. At the end of the day I could then just choose which ones I want to keep. More stuff like that, neat features to have implemented by exploiting existing hardware thru better software.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

bloodycape

My X-E1 has a feature like that. It allows me to take 4 shots with different film simulators(thought I don't think it saves the RAW). I would think the X-T10 would also have a feature like this.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Stephan Def

Cool, thanks for that Info.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

"What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. ."

EXACTLY what I asked for Stephan!

Somebody asked why I would want all that: my reply was 'asks sports shooter why they want motor drive!- CHOICE- EASY choice!

I don't want to have to delve into their fiddly internal raw convertor when I could just use the cheap memory card to save all the versions I might like.

Maybe not all shots all days but when I can't predetermine which version jpeg I ant along with saving a RAW file then hell yeah - great idea to just supply the lot. Boom boom boom.

I thinking especially good for street, where you might want bright colours for one shot, skin tones for the next, mono, for the next etc or a version of each.

Glad that at least ONE other person sees the use for this
:)

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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

Aug 10, 2015permalink

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

Aug 10, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 10, 2015permalink

cantanima bis

Why would you want film simulation bracketing, when the in-camera raw processor lets you change the film simulation after the fact? Bracket exposures by aperture or shutter speed if you must, but if you want to try different film simulations, just shoot raw & retouch after the fact. That's what I do.

Aug 11, 2015permalink

I'm happy for you that that is your preferred method and that you have time to use this way - but your mind set and situation are very different to mine. We don't want the same things.

I am already pretty fed up with all the PP I do already anyway- in fact that is why I'm using Fuji's excellent in camera jpg convert automatically in the first place.

MUCH easier to peruse all the options already created and chose the best on a full size screen, with full sized computing power and to just to delete the ones you don't want after the fact than faff about on a tiny screen pressing tiny buttons and taking year and a day to trawl through hundreds of images trying out different film styles to see which works best for that shot

What's the big deal? Memory is cheap FFS! Just give me better film bracketing - I want it and so why the resistance?

Fuji offer me best in class jpgs off the peg so why on earth offer 3 film simulations but prevent 5 when 5 are available? WHY? makes no sense at all.

Aug 11, 2015*permalink

You must love deleting images. I hate culling and managing multiple copies of the same thing. Much rather open the file in Lightroom and pick a simulation at that point on the big screen after making any obvious corrections first.

To each their own of course, I'm not against this silly feature as long as it doesn't get in the way.

That said, calm down! Three is plenty to deal with. If you want to get mad about bracketing you should focus on the exposure bracketing, which only goes +-1 stop which is barely worth doing.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

goprohero

I love that classic look

Aug 6, 2015permalink

avotius

A good review but I feel one point is missed. Fuji refuses to put better bracketing in their cameras and it drives me nuts. 3@+-1 is not good enough, the bare minimum should be 3@+-2 and better yet 5 or 7. For some reason this is something Fuji will not listen to anyone about, and many people do have the same complaint. I wish big photo review sites like dpreview would make light of that problem and hopefully it would help push Fuji to fall in line with everyone else on a simple function.

Aug 6, 2015*permalink

ModCat

...and I would assume a very simple FW update. Odd they have not done this.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

Fuji needs IBIS/better low light focus/speed and a friendly Xtrans.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

hifimacianer

I agree with IBIS, that would be a welcome adittion.
Focus speed is better since FW4.0.

And why is the actual Xtrans not "friendly"? Do you mean the bad demosaicing in Lightroom? That's not the fault of Xtrans, it's the fault of Adobes engineers. Other RAW converters have great results with the "unfriendly" Xtrans files.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

picnut

I have an X-E1 and X-T1 plus several Fuji lenses. I love them all, but I more often shoot with my Sony a6000 simply because the lenses are so much smaller and lighter for walk-around and travel purposes. I don't understand why Fuji's lenses are so much larger when both cameras are mirrorless and have APS-C sensors.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

hifimacianer

High quality lenses need a lot of glass, that's why Fuji lenses are bigger. But smaller lenses are also there (14, 18, 27, 35), and the new 35/f2 will also be smaller.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

I hope these smaller lenses will also become more affardable.
Fujifilm has amazing high-end glass. But they lack a good affordable line-up.

Especially when compared to the m43 system. But then no denying what they already achieved in just a few years.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

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!

Aug 7, 2015permalink

14mm F2.8 899,-
18mm F2 599,- Panasonic 14mm F2.5 248,-
27mm F2.8 449,- Panasonic 20mm F1.7 299,-
35mm F1.4 599,- Panasonic 25mm F1.4 599,-
35mm F2 ?? Olympus 25mm F1.8 299,-

prices are from BH, Sorry but i see a significant gap in prices. Just the 35mm seems reasonable. The 27mm is what i would call outrageously priced.

Luckily their 18-55mm kit-lens is so good i have no reason to buy any of these primes.

Aug 7, 2015permalink

so buy panasonic
;)

Please don't look at Leica lens prices!

Aug 7, 2015*permalink

richheath

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).

Aug 7, 2015permalink

Rich what did you do to the shopkeeper?

Aug 7, 2015permalink

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

Aug 7, 2015*permalink

Photomonkey

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.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

BarnET your price examples aren't very good comparisons IMHO. They have similar equivalent focal lengths, but the equivalent apertures are WAY off. All m43 lenses have effective apertures (both in terms of light gathered and DoF) much higher than the f-stops listed implies.

If Fuji made an 18mm f/4.5 maybe it would cost $250 too.

It costs money to put good glass in front of a big sensor, and Fuji pushes it further by having very high standards of sharpness.

If you can't afford all their fancy primes then that's okay, because even the 18-55 f/2.8-4 is going to outperform most of those m43 primes in terms of light gathering anyway ;)

Aug 13, 2015permalink

18mm F4.5?! It's not the equiv. of that
F2.5 * 2 = F5.0
5/1.5= F3.33 So you doubled the actual difference.

If your gonna bitch about light gathering at least apply the crop factor both ways.

I have the 18-55mm and i love that lens. But saying that it will outperform most of those primes in terms of equiv. light gathering or depth of field is just mathematical BS.

18mm F2.8
27mm F4.2 compared to 28mm F5 Fuji wins

27mm F3.2
40mm F4.8 vs 40mm F3.4 Panasonic 20mm wins

35mm F3.6
50mm F5.4 vs 50mm F2.8 Panasonic wins big time olympus too with F3.6 equiv.

55mm F4
85mm F6 vs 85mm F3.4 Again very obvious win for the m43 prime.

So it wins at 18mm and it loses in terms of light gathering at all other prime focal lengths.

Pick a math lesson before starting a stupid argument for no reason.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Congratulations on disproving the least important claim I made (that the kit zoom is as good as $1400 worth of prime lenses). You're right that I didn't calculate all values, my point was that it's not that far off and all in a single lens. How do the kit zooms from m43 compare when you do aperture equivalence? Want to math it out?

Notably you don't mention how much more you get from the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compared to the m43 25mm f/1.4. I bet it's a good lens, but it seems good fast lenses are expensive on m43 even when they have less light+dof.

I didn't start a stupid argument I started a complex one, but you seem to love ad hominem attacks. I didn't start it for no reason either, I mentioned it because it's easy for people to be confused by "equivalent" lenses that seem similar but are fundamentally different from/worse than each other.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Maybe more importantly, there are no AF lenses even available that give the effect of something like the 35mm f/1.4 or 56mm f/1.2 for m43, you just don't have that as an option.

Also interesting is your list had nothing to match the Fuji 14mm, and certainly there's nothing even close to the 16mm f/1.4 in terms of wide angle DoF control. Neither are cheap lenses from Fuji but I'd rather have a system where they are available as options.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

My real point: The reason to buy m43 isn't because the lenses are better value, because once you factor in DoF/IQ they aren't more affordable, just less good and appropriately priced.

A good reason to buy m43 is because the lenses are genuinely tiny and you value that weight/size gain. Another good reason is if you are satisfied with that level of quality/control and want to save money.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

About the 35mm i did mention it was a good deal a week ago.

I also said the 27mm is outrageously overpriced. I said that becouse 1 it's 449 vs 299,- for a lens similar in size and focal length. Which happens to be faster even when taking the smaller sensor into account. F4.2 vs F3.4 equiv.

about the 14mm HiFi named those 4 primes.
You can get a F2.8 olympus Zoom that covers that range or a Rokinon/Samyang 10mm F2.8. Great lens but it's designed for a Dslr so it's large and heavy.

Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.

But then m43 has a 42.5mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8. I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?
Me and my XE-2 included. This weekend i have the Olympus 45mm glued on a Gx7 while using the XE-2 with the 18-55 to cover wide to normal in a photoshoot.

Aug 13, 2015*permalink

> Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.

Wow yeah, I didn't know about that one (announced after I settled my research and picked Fuji). Looks impressive but like you say, the price isn't a selling point at all considering the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is way cheaper AND obviously will give more DoF control and light. Wow, it's also HEAVIER and LONGER than the Fuji 56mm! That's not what I was expecting. The takeaway to me: Fuji is pretty good at making high end lenses if not cheap midrange ones. Once you decide to invest they give you something worth investing in.

I think we both know those f/0.95 lenses are neither practical nor affordable :P I could go out and adapt a true leica lens to my Fuji if I had $3k and all day to focus :P

Aug 13, 2015permalink

> I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?

Yeah definitely, we can agree on that! There's a lot of people begging for a cheap+light trinity of 23mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 56mm f/2 lenses to go with the f/1.4-f/1.2 set, though really the 27mm and 60mm are what those people don't realize they want. It's too bad the 60mm is a weird duck with the slow focus on older cameras (apparently the new FW for the X-T* cameras improves it dramatically) or it would be an obvious starter choice.

Personally I just adapted a basically free manual 50mm f/2 for bokeh and made do with the 18-55mm 'till I could afford to start investing in high end primes. It's fun and all these mirrorless cameras are great at making do with MF.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

I agree completely about the 18-55mm dissuading me from buying the cheaper primes, it's so good that I'd rather make do with it than switch out for one stop of light.

If the kit lens was f/3.5-5.6 the 60mm f/2.4 would be a much more obvious buy, as would the 18mm f/2. As-is you kind of need a high end prime just to get something that the kit lens doesn't give you already. IMHO this is a feature not a detriment though! I got my X-E1 for $800 including the 18-55mm, which was a big part of the reason I chose Fuji.

By comparison the kit lenses from Olympus and Sony (the other two brands I considered) struck me as nearly useless and I felt like I'd need to buy new lenses right away. I barely use the Fuji 18-55 now that I have 16+35mm f/1.4 primes, but when I was starting out it was priceless.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

I bought the XE-2 mostly becouse the 18-55mm zoom. To lesser extent i really liked my brief time with the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 It's just head and shoulders above most mirrorless telephoto lenses. Exception are of course the F2.8 constants of some brands.

I could buy the XE-2 with this kit-lens for the equiv. of buying that same lens in m43 (i would have bought the olympus 12-40mm otherwise.

But since i lovd the fujifilm rendering in B&W and solely used the Gx7 with primes anyway i tried this instead.

And the quality of that lens speaks louder then words. It truly is not your average kit-lens. I have just 1 complain with mine. Barrel distortion at 18mm. That is it's 1 and only flaw.

Aug 14, 2015permalink

Nice. All I'll add is that once you try one of Fuji's wide primes you may re-assess the quality of the 18-55mm :P

The 16mm f/1.4 is neither small (it weighs more than the X-T10) nor cheap (it also costs more), but the contrast, color and sharpness are a joy to edit compared to the 18-55mm, which always feels "grungy" or something by comparison. Maybe it's just f/1.4 making everything glow but damn the photos just make me feel good ;)

Aug 14, 2015permalink

and another thing....
( ;) )

I now use the M1 with just the 27mm lens on it, small , handy with excellent image quality and hey - not expensive!

Still toying with whether to ditch the big DSLR and jump hp altogether, but that fast glass is looking good to meee
:)

Aug 15, 2015permalink

km25

What Fuji needs, a new sensor. Maybe 1/8000. It sure does not need glass, it's lens are from very good ( only a few) to excellent (most). Fuji should get a good sensor, like Samsung.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

They are working on that :) See what they use in the X-Pro 2 in Jan. 2016.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

Fabio Amodeo

I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.

Aug 5, 2015permalink

the tests I did at home with LR actually surprised me how good they were after all the complaints Id heard. I even tried a demo of C, couldn't see any advantage at all - and the UI is poo

Aug 7, 2015permalink

Photomonkey

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.

Aug 8, 2015permalink

martinot

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).

Aug 10, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Capture one is not just the standard, it's practically mandatory in medium format commercial shots. You will lose contracts for not having it. LR is not quite the equivalent in its market segment, but close, however that has nothing to do with its quality IMHO. Capture One and Iridient Developer are incredibly good. The workflow and interface are very different and I feel that is what prevents LR users from getting the most out of them when they try it, it certainly takes time to acclimate.

Sep 16, 2015permalink

Webm agree with what you're saying, though "equivalent in its market segment" isn't really the important question, since the market segments are vastly different in size. Maybe there are thousands of medium format users who would only use C1, but there are tens of millions of LR users, many professional. That there is more competition in the non-medium-format market can be explained by it's comparatively enormous size.

Sep 17, 2015permalink

forpetessake

I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.

1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.

2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.

Aug 5, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Could 1 be a result of abandoning the ISO-cheating phenomenon DPR has observed?

Aug 6, 2015permalink

theprehistorian

My X-Pro 1 underexposes too, and if memory serves, so did the X100S. Check the histogram when you chimp and compensate accordingly.

Aug 6, 2015permalink

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?

Aug 8, 2015*permalink

IchiroCameraGuy

Which metering mode do you use?

Aug 8, 2015permalink

theprehistorian

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...

Aug 9, 2015permalink

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).

Aug 10, 2015permalink

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.

Aug 10, 2015*permalink

Digimat

i can´t say that any of my fuji cameras (i used) "underexposes", on the contrary, if you just use matrix metering they very often totaly blow highlights and give a very punchy, contrasty and bright image. on my 5D3 on the other hand i am most of the time at +1EV compensation, or even more, to get the result i want.

Aug 10, 2015permalink

I feel like I've noticed a similar effect compared to my X-E1, when I get home I'm boosting exposure on more photos than before.

That said I suspect it has more to do with the updated EVF, which now auto-compensates for different situations. Previously my sense of exposure while shooting was heavily influenced by the appropriateness of the EVF brightness setting, whereas now I need to get used to the more neutral brightness it chooses for me.

Either way, time to start paying more attention to the histogram!

Aug 13, 2015permalink

Can we get an option to make the histogram bigger? That's what I need.

Aug 13, 2015permalink

FodgeandDurn

I hate the feeling that the grip is smaller than the XT-1 only to differentiate the fact that it is a cheaper model. I'm sure it wouldn't have cost much to add a bigger grip and tempt more people who originally wanted an XT-1 but can't afford it. It might also have helped those looks, this isn't supposed to be a rangefinder after all.. Given how far the lenses stick out a larger grip wouldn't have compromised the form factor. *grumble*

Aug 5, 2015permalink