Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples

It makes me cry to think that with just a little bit more thoughtfulness put into control layout that Nikon could have had a camera as good as this one looks to be. Aperture ring - shutter speed dial - come on Nikon how could you not have done this? The Nikon CpA is one of my favorite small cameras, but it could have been so much more had they given it the "Fuji treatment" - which used to be the way Nikon built cameras too, but has somehow lost their way.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

Fotogeneticist

It's great to finally see a competitor to the Ricoh GR series. High image quality to camera size ratio. The Ricoh GR has been the only truly pocketable APS-C for years. I use mine for street photography as well as while I am cycling.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

And the near clone Nikon CpA.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

Fotogeneticist

I looked at the Nikon CP A (as a long time Nikon user since the days of film), however, the customizability to facilitate the fastest operation for the controllable factors of exposure (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, ND filter, flash) were not there. On the other hand, my Ricoh allows me near instantaneous manipulation similar to my DSLR, but much smaller. Ricoh's interface is amazing and a result of listening to customer feedback. Ricoh can also go against the grain without worrying much through the creation of this excellent niche product. Next step should be full frame. Ultimately, it's all about IQ to camera size ratio. Find the innate quality of something and measure that against the innate utility factor (which is mainly "pocketability"--think how iPhone cameras are making compact cameras obsolete. That is the natural measure of progress of something. The first to understand this and get there wins.

Feb 12, 2016*permalink

PKDanny

Left 15 days to go PENTAX FULL FRAME DSLR!!

Feb 11, 2016permalink

yahoo2u

I'll wait for real world images before giving an opinion. Image 12 at ISO-400 in exploded view is a touch on the "noisy" side.
The Nikon A at half the price is a better deal, and as for now the Ricoh still has this market stitched.
Fuji boys who enjoy the 28mm view will buy it because it's a Fuji, that's it.
There will plenty on the used market just like the Nikon A when it was out. The Ricoh's were harder to come by used because "photographers" purchased those.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

pictureAngst

For someone who's waiting before giving an opinion, you're not doing a particularly good job 😀

Feb 10, 2016permalink

yahoo2u

@Angst, read it in context, let me help you.
1. DPR don't produce the best images...probably a time factor in setting the camera right...hence...
2. There are some excellent Fuji shooters who will know what to do with the X70...so i'll wait for them.
3. The rest is self explanatory.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

I would love the Coolpix A if the AF was faster. But then the used price would be higher.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

maximme

CoolPix A died cause its a VERY SLOW camera.
everything was slow.

They gave a very good clearance price. If you got it at clearance then its
a great bargain.
Fuji X70 is at Coolpix original intro price. and is a MUCH FASTER camera.

Feb 11, 2016*permalink

Actually, Coolpix A was $1100 at launch!

Current used/refurbished/clearance pricing is great, if you don't mind the slower operation.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

yahoo2u

@maximme.......with a 28mm fixed lens and you saying it was slow, please tell me, did you go shoot football?, car racing?, horse racing?, bicycle racing??

Feb 11, 2016permalink

grapposoda

You maxes,
Ive never heard before the opinion that the coolpix is slow in operation. Care to elaborate a bit..? (I cant seem to find one in store to test myself) Thanks!

Feb 11, 2016permalink

Coolpix is not slow. It is contrast detect AF system, but not slower than other cdaf systems. The face detect works very well and as a bonus it will expose just on the face which is great for high contrast scenes.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

The Ricoh GR has significantly faster autofocus, after its firmware was updated. To be fair, the Coolpix A should be compared with cameras in its class (APS-C compacts)- so no Micro 4/3 for example (although a compact M/43 with 14mm f/2.5 lens will AF almost instantly.) I guess another comparison point would be the original Fuji X100, which is not extremely fast either at AF.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

grapposoda

Ok, so mainly slower AF.
Actually, I do have a X100 ("original and best!") ;) and indeed the AF can be frustratingly slow and unreliable. More so in low light.
I recently got a RX100 (M3) to get zoom, faster AF and better video AIO. But was disappointed to find the handling is so extremely fiddly and over complicated that I often just dont bother to even try "catching the moment".. (Slow start up and lens unfolding doesnt help either.)
A quick and simple compact like the GR or this X70 would probably suit me better.

Feb 11, 2016*permalink

The Ricoh GR is a really nice camera, with a great user interface that's tailored for enthusiasts. I'm sure the X70 is very nice too, just more expensive. The X100T seems to have very solid AF (tried it briefly.)

Feb 12, 2016permalink

LiveFromPhilly

I wish somebody would make one of these 18.5mm APS-C cameras with a little built in viewfinder like the film GRs had.

It wouldn't even have to be complicated since it's a fixed focal length. Just give me some frame lines and tell me what my shutter speed, ISO, and aperture are.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

love that idea.Ive used a aftermarket VF on my Nikon a, still have to use the screen to confirm focus which is a bummer. With the GR you could use snap focus

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Shake Reduction

At 18.5 inches, can't you just aim close enough and have a pretty good shot at it? And even if you have critical corners, unless you are like 80 and can't see anything close, it's not that hard to look at the rear lcd. I have a Ricoh GR and can't think of a single time I couldn't frame without a precious viewfinder, even in dreaded sunlight. Maybe you're use to one, but good photog's can change process.

Feb 10, 2016*permalink

Dan Tong

Viewfinders are a plus when you follow fast movement which does not work well with LCD screen, otherwise what you say makes good sense.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Digital-Camera-X-Trans-Sensor/dp/B006UV6YMQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1455039706&sr=1-2&keywords=fuji+pro1

Ironically "shake reduction" is another good reason to use a VF. And, no question for precise timing and framing of moving subjects a VF isquite nice. The GR is wonderful little camera(I've shot a few thousand frames on one myself), but just like any other wonderful little cameras it is not flawless. But, unlike a lot of others on these boards I'm not overly fond of most compact digital cameras, though I use them quite a lot. Frankly, the film compacts of the 90s had better IQ potential until the last few years, and the build quality was far better in many cases

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Mike FL

FUJI cameras do not hold price well if Fuji wants to move the invensory, such as X-Pro1 is $500 while it was more than 3x500 = USD 1500.

FUJI makes some of its cameras look liking Leica, but Fuji is not Leica as Leica can hold the prce very well.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

EricWN

This strikes me as over the top simplification. The price of the X-Pro is low partially because it's a four year old camera. In return Fuji is a nice system to buy second hand.
I have a bunch of Leica stuff and it looses its value over time just as well, some M cameras and lenses might be better but everything else doesn't really hold much value on my experience.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Fingel

Yes and they also just introduced the X-Pro1 replacement so the low price is to clear out the inventory of the 4 year old camera. I've used both systems, and Fuji makes very nice cameras and the lenses are second to none.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

People with long memories will know Fujifilm made great film and superb cameras , Leica made quality cameras ( in Europe) with fantasity prices .

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Mike FL

Nikon A is about little over $300 currently, fwiw.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Raist3d

I honestly cant see what Fuji bings to the table over the GR here. Handling and the jpeg engine. Handling would be a great advantage if it wasnt for the fact the Ricoh GR handles very well too.

In the meantime the Ricoh has a faster leaf shutter an built in auto ND filter so you can atill shoot wide open without rilling shutter of the fuji.

I guessthe Fuji has its charm but i feel they hould also have covered all bases as far as a Ricoh competitor goes.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I think the market for fixed lens 28mm cameras is pretty small. I wasn't interested in the Coolpix A for $1100 but for $289, it's a excellent little camera.

I also doubt most people looking for a small camera understand the quality difference between fixed focal lengths and zooms, especially with software that corrects the flaws in the zoom.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

nicoboston

@AbrasiveReducer I think there are a lot of people looking for a small camera who actually understand the quality difference between fixed focal lengths and zooms, but need a zoom anyway because it is more versatile. As far as I'm concerned, the new Panasonic DMC-ZS100 (which is also a $700 compact) makes more sense that the X70, although I know that the fixed X70 lens is optically much better.
So I'm just wondering if the X30 will have a successor with a small zoom and a better sensor, which is somehow what I was expecting from a X** series camera.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

jyrgenn

What I see from the Fuji X-sensor sample pictures, low-light capabilites are superior to the GR's. The GR is a totally nifty little thing, and I love it (bought it because the X100S was so much more expensive at the time), but as low-light pictures are a large part of what I do, I'd buy the X70 for the same price today.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Always remember loylty to a brand is the main reason new designs are introduced . As it is far easier to sell to this type of photographer.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Shake Reduction

When you compare the size of this to the GR, it's not the same. I can fit a gr in my jeans pocket. No way this thing fits. That right there is a huge difference for many with this segment. If it can't fit in a small pocket, then it might as well be any camera, because it needs a bag or a coat.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

jyrgenn

According to DPReview, the sizes are:
X70 113 x 64 x 44 mm
GR 117 x 61 x 35 mm

Not that much of a difference, I'd say. I'd like both, funds permitting (which they don't :–).

Feb 10, 2016permalink

rondure

I care more about the personality of the SOOC jpg, too lazy to edit things. I still think Ricoh GR II's got the edge, but the fact that the wifi app sucks is a big let down for me.

The advantage of the x70 is the physical controls, the tilting screen that doubles as a stand, the non-retracting lens great for staying inconspicuous in the street, and better wifi app.

I'm just hoping that the image settings can be edited to spit out a jpg similar to the Ricoh GR.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Raist3d

jygenn - check it out at camera size.com. It's the kind of thing that on paper may seem close but holding the cameras has more feel to it.

Also let's wait of the studio samples before concluding it has better ISO than he Ricoh GR. It's the same Sony base sensor after all- most likely.

Feb 11, 2016*permalink

jyrgenn

Re the size, I think it is a personal preference if the 9 mm of additional thickness bother you; it makes a significant difference if you want to pocket it in your jeans — which I rarely do, but then I'd still have gladly spared the tilting screen to save 3 mm.

The sensor is said to be the same as in the X100/S/T, which is a quite different beast than the one in the GR; see here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/3
Also, on-sensor phase detection for faster AF, which the GR isn't exactly famous for.

Feb 11, 2016*permalink

Raist3d

But you said it yourself- to put in a jeans pocket it's a benefit. I understand the pro of the articulated LCD but I think the "wear the camera at all times with you" and ease of taking in/out is more important for a street photographer in general. Still, a personal preference, but I would still count it as a Ricoh advantage.

The sensor has PDAF, but the base of the sensor is most likely the same, hence I expect similar characteristics. Just because a sensor has PDAF added doesn't mean the underlying DR/ISO performance are going to be different- just a sensor variant.

Feb 11, 2016permalink

Cant seem to view a proper image opening raws in Irident Devloper. Any way i can do that?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

photo perzon

I find lately that unless one downloads the actual file jpeg for exmaple, Preview shows it as not sharp, but when downloaded it looks much sharper. Used to be different.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

rrccad

"pocketable" someone has much bigger pockets than mine apparently.

not really too impressed with the output. hard to say though, but nothing that makes me go hmmm that's amazing.

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

My moto...if in doubt pass without !

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Bronze Age Man

ISO 3,200 is very grainy. Images are OK but would expect a bit more sharpness at 16 MP. The price seems high for the image quality.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

High price ? Always nice if you can get it , better again when you have to discount !

Feb 10, 2016permalink

High price ? Always nice if you can get it , better again when you have to discount !

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Frank C.

I don't understand the attraction of fixed wide angle lens cameras when you can just whip out your phone instead, other than better low light performance what do these cameras bring at the table anyway? It's just another piece of tech to carry around, I just don't see the point of it.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

badi

But if it had a longer focal length it would have a point? You can crop the center from your phone and have a 50mm or 100mm or 200mm, as well. Apart from IQ it's the same thing.

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

Fixx

Should have teleconverter... :-)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Ive made a number of nice prints with my Nikon A, In fact i liked the prints from the A enough more than what i was getting from the rx100 that I sold that camera. A 16mp APS C sensor, with a sharp prime is a good standard for prints, and i have yet to see a similarly sized zoom that isnt significantly short of that standard when it comes to a printed page. If your not printing sure use the phone

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Peter Bendheim

You'll only understand when you've used an X100T

Feb 9, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

If you believe cell phones have equivalent quality to cameras with APS sized sensors and fixed focal length lenses, then sure, there's no reason to carry one.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Frank C.

AbrasveReducer- better quality but not for the $$$, rather buy a nice lens for my interchangeable lens camera then waste cash on a fixed focal length camera that my phone already is, or close to it anyways.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

You are so right . The phone camera is reaching its peak of perfection and can only give challenge to some users to get more creative in buying traditional cameras . As a user you have nothing to be concerned about but spare a thought for camera makers and workers .

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Shake Reduction

How can you not see the point? Can you capture quick movement without blurring on a cell phone? And low light, you say it as if you are describing so terrible near dark condition. A cell phone sucks in anything other than perfect light. Do you ever need to adjust iso, aperture, shutter speed? Can you do that on a cell phone? Other than focal length, this has little in common with a cell phone. Expand your limited thinking. And not everyone makes camera buying decisions by trying to be a cheapskate. This usually isn't bought as someone's only camera. This isn't a "if I only have two nickels to spend, what's the most economical way to spend it" purchase. I have a GR, and I use it when I want the same resolution as a Pentax K5, without lugging a dslr with me. I also have an Iphone 6s plus, and they don't do the same thing. Does that make sense now?

Feb 10, 2016*permalink

The gr and the CpA set the bar pretty high in terms of lens performance. The sensors were the last gen 16mp jobs. But both still performed pretty good. But still if the Fuji handles well it could still be a good option for this type of camera.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Wow! that really is a tiny APS-C.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Godiwa

Must be a newbie taking those pictures... "dude sitting on mountain" 1/1000 and ISO 800? wtf? slap ISO down to 200 and shuttertime would still be plenty fast.

"Chick with dog in snow" 1/1000 ISO 400, again LOWER THE ISO!!!

"Tractor and nature" 1/1600 ISO 800... What kinda idiot uses so high shutterspeeds for non moving objects? it just raises the ISO for no reason. I could understand if it was night shots OR a fast moving subject.

"house and nature" 1/2000 ISO 800... so it just continues throughout the gallery.

there was atleast one picture with 1/25 and 1/100 shutter times which is fine... but man not impressed... the "subject" in the pictures doesnt need to be interesting but atleast learn something about shuttertimes and ISO before doing a gallery like this :-/

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Michiel953

Foaming at the mouth are you?

These images show us what they are meant to show. In the examples you list: high(er) ISO and lens quality at shutterspeeds that circumvent criticism ("It's not sharp because the shutterspeed was too slow!!!") from people like you; the caps lock stuck exclamation mark sort.

So the image quality is pretty disappointing. Agreed?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Digimat

i guess they simply used the wider dynamic range mode, then you end up with ISO400(at DR200%) and ISO800 (and DR400%) as lowest posibble ISO.

apart from that, there is basically no difference between ISO200 and ISO800 with this sensor. unless you want to push another 2 or 3 stops that is.

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

FBoneOne

Congratulations, you just discovered how Fuji manages high DR scenes when on auto DR. The pictures are really taken at ISO 200 but under exposed by 1 or 2 stops due to the "offset" ISO rating. Then the picture exposure is rebalanced in the camera Jpg converter or a 3rd party converter with the proper tone curve (except in LR which does not read that meta tag and delivers a picture underexposed by 1 or 2 stops). It is not a perfect solution but it allows not messing up with speed and aperture while taking advantage of the sensor high DR. It works well to keep highlights under control - not so well obviously for shadows.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

photomedium

godiwa,
do you actually title every pic you take? :-)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Godiwa

title them? nah should I? I delete most if they are not good enough but easier for ppl to figure out which you talk about when you describe whats on em

Feb 9, 2016permalink

ThorstenMUC

One should not call others "idiot", if he does not understand, how increasing dynamic range on an "iso-less" Sony-sensor avoids blowing out highlight on an image - e.g. in the snow.

Yes - please use ISO 800, to shorten the exposure and don't overexpose the white snow... Fuji DR-modes can automatically pull up the shadows two stops where needed - or do it yourself later in RAW.
Current Sony-sensors have so much details in shadows you can use this trick without sacrificing IQ in shadows relevantly.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

Someone doesn't understand how Fujifilm's DR modes work ;)

For the scenes that included a real wide range of tones from very bright to very dark, I used DR400 which locks ISO to 800 (and/or upwards) but greatly expands the dynamic range of a single exposure. The dude on the mountain is a good example. You can see detail everywhere from the sunlit slopes of mount Rainier (in the distance) to the shadowy rocks in the foreground.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Michiel953

@Messr Britton: Do you think they're sharp? Do you see purple fringing?

Detail, possibly, but it's not sharp detail.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Digimat

the x-trans output always looked like this - you got plenty of detail, but not that digital pixel-level sharpness. its great for portraits and all things living, but if you want to pixel peep on rock formations you are most possible underwhelmed.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Some people don't understand these sample tests are not for professionals , mainly for the average user . But if an example challenges a mind to do better ..... It has done its job buy it and do better !

Feb 10, 2016permalink

photomedium

I don't get the point of a device that introduces a 'fudge factor' hard coded at the point of detection. Seems to me that all this does is just saving one step in post processing.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Wu Jiaqiu

i find them pretty grainy for a APS-C sized sensor

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Shamael

X-trans crap, Fuji should put that X-Trans in the garbage, that's the best place for it. Last good sensor I used from Fuji was there Super CCD.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

avac

Except for, well, it's not.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Greg7579

Shamael, You are entitled to your opinion, but I know many professional photographers who would disagree with that observation about Fuji sensors and the X-Trans. My opinion is that all the big names are making really great cameras. The glass is where the real difference is. That, and the size, feel and controls of the camera. Can you imagine how fantastic all of these cameras are going to be ten years from now? Will any of them be "garbage"? None of them are garbage even now.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Sir Nick of High Point

Just a matter of vocabulary, but I see a lot of people describe the Fuji sensors as "Grainy." This is infact, exactly what Fuji is trying to accomplish, and have done a great job.

You see, in reality there is no such thing as "grain" when talking about a digital image. Grain refers to the silver halide structure of a particular film emulsion. Grain structure is random in nature, and therefore pleasing to the eye. "Digital noise" on the other hand results from the thermal limitations of the digital sensor, and typically appears to have a blotchy pattern associated with it. The concept of the Fuji X-Trans sensor, was to rearrange the digital sensing elements in such a way that the digital noise appears more random, and thus, more pleasing and film-like. I think they have done a fantastic job here :)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

JT26

Hmm not overly impressed but they're only samples I guess. Doesnt seem as good as the GR, especially in terms of sharpness anyway.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

HowAboutRoar

I would love to see results with this camera at 35mm focal length, I cannot find any review specifically testing the 35mm and or 50mm settings, if X70 at 35mm focal length is great then I will be very tempted to get one (X100T is awesome but just too large in my opinion)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

etom

Take a crop from center of the image and you get your 35 or 50mm.

Feb 12, 2016permalink

robbinsbox

it would be good to see 1 or 2 samples with a foreground subject + a wider background, still useful gallery tho. thx

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Johannes Zander

Why cant these cameras have a viewfinder?
I dont like this cellphone-like picture taking with stretched out arms!

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Thematic

Fuji has MANY cameras like that.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

They have viewfinder cameras also. I really can't understand this complaint.

It's a tiny APS-C partly because it is missing features.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

...then put your glasses on. Younger eyes don't need to stretch out their arms.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Get an XE2 with 18mm prime.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Edgar V. Camacho

Get a X100T then, this is an X100T with features missing.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Michiel953

Checked out, at random, the "Girl with husky" image at 100%. Probably shouldn't have done that. If that is the sort of image quality this sensor/lens combination gives... pretty gruesome. Not sharp where the focus is, aliasing everywhere, halo's, you name it, it's there.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

There is nothing wrong with the picture quality, so it seems.
The question is why would anybody buy this camera when the pocketable Sony is so clearly superior in all possible aspects?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

John _ Finn

The Sony RX100? It's not superior in one very important aspect - it doesn't have an APSC sensor.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Which sony? Maybe the specs mean nothing to some people LOL

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Loyalty to brand

Feb 10, 2016permalink

I'm sure the X70 is a good camera but these samples are just ugly. Many not well exposed, not carefully taken photos. Pity, maybe because it's not a sony, no oh Wow kinda thing ;)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

robbinsbox

yes, kind of ugly, but very good examples nonetheless, having the raw and lifting the shadows is great, shows the worst aspects of stretching a raw file.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Shamael

They are ugly and taken in high ISO settings, that shows us exactly and in all detail what a mess the X-Trans sensor is.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

I think they are deliberately exposed for their purpose: real world test shots.

Your philosophy of what may make a good test shot may disagree, but I think they are fine test shots.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

avac

Shamael, bias much?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

They are not exhibits for a photography exhibition. Just using a camera out of the box and getting an indication of how it fares under normal circumstances. Any camera can excel if handled carefully but that does not really tell us much that is useful for the average user.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Nahh, I stand corrected. If they want to show high iso performance, at least find real low light situation. Who underexposes and shoots high iso in broad daylight? At least repeat the same scene from iso200 to iso800 for the sake of comparison. Lenstip, photozone, all take better sample shots, they just don't provide the raw, too bad.

@Greynerd - those photos look like normal circumstances - if you never shoot with other than a mobile phone.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Kewlguy, the high ISO daylight shots are maybe fuji's DR modes. They deliberately underexpose and then apply a tone curve to bring it up and preserve up to 2 stops of highlights. It's particularly useful when you don't want to do much RAW processing.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

See my comment above .

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Iamnotarobot

I don't think the pictures are good. Maybe the camera or maybe it is the photographer ... or just a bad uncreative day.... & no viewfinder...

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

Just snaps for the average guy .

Feb 10, 2016permalink

ScarletKnight

A bit off topic but living in the Snoqualmie Valley, it's fun to see these test shots since I recognize almost all of the scenery. If you want to see more, check out Tom Voelk's "Driven" auto review videos in the New York Times since he does a lot of his testing in the same area. Barney, if you haven't already, check out the DirtFish Rally School just off Mill Pond Road in Snoqualmie--probably a great spot to test the Nikon D5 and Canon EOS-1D X Mk II.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Compared to the CpA and Ricoh GRII - this is a fair price to charge for the camera. Seems pretty good.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

justmeMN

I though Fujifilm made hipster cameras. Hipster cameras don't qualify as "pocketable" unless they will fit in the pocket of skinny jeans. :-)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

jhinkey

Oh man, next time you are out on the top of Mt. Si let me know!
If you need a back-country/mountain top camera/lens tester I'd be happy to oblige . . .

Feb 9, 2016permalink

alexzn

Does it have an underexposure issue? Seems that way from the comparison of the edited and unedited photos. Nice gallery by the way.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

I've got a pixel peeping question about the petrol station photo:

Can somebody explain why the black letters on the white sign at the far left ("Truck parking prohibited …") and on the right ("No parking on fuel islands") look weird, as if not continuous? Is this due to some kind of artifacts introduced by demosaicing/the JPEG format or are the black letters on the signs somehow unusual (e.g. dotted instead of continuous ink) in reality?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

oluv

demosaicing errors

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Thanks, oluv!

Feb 9, 2016permalink

drivecancel

You can also pocket the X100 which has a VF so would still be my choice over these cameras.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

You can also pocket a Nikon D5, if your pocket is big enough. I’m sure the X70 will fit into more pockets though.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Jacques Cornell

It's the same size as my old LX7, and that never fit easily in any of my pockets, including cargo pockets on my field coat.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

drivecancel

I don't know why you are trying to be funny by bringing up the D5, I can fit the X100 into all my jacket pockets and I wear small sized jackets. It's not outlandish to say the X100 is pocketable.

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

It is indeed funny to walk around with a D5 in your pocket, don't you think?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Shamael

With all the stupid things one sees in today's world, people won't even notice it.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Not enough money in my pocket though for the X100. This is the whole point of the camera to give an affordable option.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

saeba77

i'm the only 1 that see a lot of noise at also 400 ISO?

Quality apart i really can't understand why to take this camera (650 euro)
instead of another mirrorless with interchangeable lens...fuji T10, A2, or oly Pl5 ecc

Feb 8, 2016permalink

http://theawesomer.com/photos/2010/12/120610_large_pocket_shirt_1.jpg

The obvious reason seems to be that this camera fits better into a pocket than the other cameras with an attached lens.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Jacques Cornell

It's the same size as the LX7 that I sold because it wouldn't fit in my pockets and I wound up taking my GX1 everywhere instead.
In my book, if it ain't shirt-pocketable, it ain't pocketable.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Revenant

For me, shirt pocketable means too small to handle properly. I guess it's good that cameras come in many sizes.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

PatsyK

Haha, shirt-pocketable... in witch pocket will the pocketability category end?

Feb 9, 2016permalink

saeba77

if your size is xxxxxl also a D5 is shirt-pocketable:)

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

PatsyK

Haha, here you go ;)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

flektogon

Out of each pair just one picture is O.K. Those straight out JPEGs are to the last one very poor. What's going on? I remember Fuji's OOC pictures to be excellent.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

0lf

It seems raw+jpeg images were shot in order to exploit the raw potential (for example under expose to preserve hightlight), whereas a jpeg only shooter will choose more balanced settings.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

OliverGlass

The sharpness, acuity and fine details of the files are okay for me :)

Feb 8, 2016permalink

aerorail

i see 2 of almost each pic. they look different but have the same exif caption. too confusing for this american
i'll keep using my cellphone cam

Feb 8, 2016*permalink

Mark9473

If you look at the Details, the explanation is there - first image results from RAW, the second one is a SOOC JPEG.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

Samuel Jessop

Really tempted by this, and even at launch the price seems good. This is so clearly better than the XF 18mm F2 and in a pocketable package.

What is stopping me is the launch of the 24MP X-Trans III sensor. There is no way I am buying another Fuji camera with anything other than the best sensor available, and I guess I'll have to wait for the X70S to get what I want.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

Greg7579

I admit I am a huge fan of Fuji (love the XT-1), and its special "feel" - ergo, retro, all of those beautiful dials and great IQ. I do like the X-Trans sensor. I am a Canon FF shooter and have been for many decades, but love the smaller system Fuji (and other mirrorless makers) provides. The Fuji lenses are the best in the world, I do believe. Now, having said that as full disclosure, I am always amazed that on any new camera announcement or early galleries or discussion of any brand, that people come out in droves rudely bashing whatever camera is in discussion in emotional ways that are not interesting or constructive. Many of them are paid writers supporting competing brands and their mission is to make the competition sound less appealing. Others of them are younger people who love internet and forum battles and are fiercely loyal to whatever brand they invested money in initially, and feel the need to bash anything else because it validates their own opinion and purchases.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

Battersea

Camera bashing is truly weird. I guess the same people bash ketchup brands that they don't use and on and on. They act as if every camera has to be made for their budget, their photography style, their sense of style their hands etc. The best photographers review the devices, buy what works and create art. The bashers type and type and wait for their dream cameras to be produced some day.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

MyReality

Greg 7579 comment may be referring to the fake hotel and restaurant reviews online exposed about two or three years ago. People were writing positive reviews for certain ones and negative reviews for others. They were paid by clients.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Neil189

Nice cover up Megan V, we all know you work for Sony :)

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Neil189

In all seriousness, it wouldn't surprise me at all. It wouldn't be the OEMs themselves, but more like a publicity agency, marketing research type. They would handle Internet search, forums, clicks, competitor tracking, etc. Many consumers are heavily on reviews and forums. Thats why Amazon has so many products now that are given to the consumer by the manufacturer in exchange for a good review. Not a apples to apples comparison but shows that the marketers are taking notice of forums and reviews. In fact in the Panasonic forum there is a member constantly asking about who will buy what, etc and I thought I remember her flat out posting (after being directly asked about it) that she worked for some research company. Soo...just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you :) - K. Cobain

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

Eric Hensel

There are companies that do hire people to post (positive and negative) in internet forums for clients. This is a fact. Your skepticism won't change this. You'll have to do a little searching on Google, Megan V, but they are there...
Lance Armstrong spent several hundred thousand dollars -paying a single company to influence public opinion in multiple online forums before he went down in flames...

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

misspiggy01

if you question camera bashing you didn´t fully grasp the purpose of the forums on sites like this!

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Greg+26 fuji-trolls and counting :)
Could be the same person ...

Feb 9, 2016*permalink

"Is that just a *really* dry, deadpan joke?"

Some people are just so naive. This is business, and such methods are guaranteed to be being used. It's even in the news, FGS.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Battersea

@ Misspiggy, sometimes I wonder what is the purpose of the forums on sites like this? Seems as if we should discuss the merits of a particular camera or cameras v. SIMILAR cameras but but so many times people compare cameras like 1D Mark II and a micro 4/3rds or point and shoot mega zooms v. fixed lens single focal length cameras. It seems as if a lot of people on here compare Ferraris to Honda Civics or even to SUVs, both great cars but very different markets. The fanatacism is kinda weird too, as if the camera companies are sports teams or have political agendas.

Feb 9, 2016permalink

Normal people are here to learn things, share things, have fun and enjoy watching how photography evolves. Not for some kind of camera worshiping cult or a holy war against sane people :)
Honestly, what do you expect? I'm reading most of the articles here, regardless of the camera brand involved and when I see (in the comments) all kinds of lies, delusions, propaganda, paranoia and ignorance, I try to 'fix' it. Some silly people just love bashing everything they don't like or understand. So what? That doesn't mean they are being paid to do it. There is no perfect camera. Just accept it and be critical, seek the truth and don't be a troll.
Good luck.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

Greg7579

Megan, Sorry -- I forgot I posted this and just checked the responses 2 days later. Yes, My Dear, it is true. Not for all of the posts of course. Just on a few well-placed responses. Sometimes they are hard to spot. Some are more subtle than others. But there indeed are guys (and gals) who are paid to do this without ever having touched the camera itself. Sad isn't it? Hey -- I'm an old guy (59) and I really like that "Gregster" moniker. My daughters think I'm just a stodgy old photographer. Little do they know.... I'm really the DP Review Forum's Gregster.... Yes. Anyway, I don't think you work for Sony. You sound like you kind of like Fuji and Sony. And you write far too well to be a paid for spewing three-line attack posts. Megan, have you held the XT-1 in your hands with the incredible 16mm prime attached? Have you ever just stared at it and wondered how Fuji could have made something so beautiful? And no ... Fuji does not pay me for saying that.

Feb 10, 2016permalink

What if Megan doesn't suffer from any kind of tactile fetish addictions? Do you?
I'm sorry Greg, but you sound like a pimp :)

Feb 10, 2016permalink

"@ecka84: I "suffer tactile fetish addition" for my girlfriend, not my cameras."
- I believe that fetish addiction can only be applied to an object or a thing, but not a person :).

Feb 15, 2016permalink

straylightrun

Juat get an old X-E2, upgrade to the new 4.0 fw and get a 18/2. Itll be cheaper, faster, you get an evf and its capable of changing lenses.

Feb 8, 2016permalink

KameraFever

I did. I bought an x-e2 with 18-55 in almost new condition. The x70 is still nice though.

Feb 9, 2016permalink