www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X100T Review

March 2015 | By Richard Butler


Based on a production Fujifilm X100T

The Fujifilm FinePix X100 was a milestone camera in the industry as one of the first large sensor, prime lens cameras to achieve widespread popularity. Its classic looks, obviously cribbed from a certain German camera maker, were justified by the excellent image quality its 35mm equivalent f/2 lens could produce. It was also a rare example of a camera its maker continued to develop, long after it hit the market. An original X100 running the latest firmware is a much better camera than the one that Fujifilm originally launched. Impressively, this work continued even after the second-generation, Fujifilm X100S had been launched.

Fujifilm has continued this process of improvement, fine-tuning and evolution to create the X100T. From the outside it looks very much like the original model but it's packed with a host of changes, modifications and additions that promise to make it still better than what's gone before. There's a Japanese approach to continuous improvement often refered to as 'kaizen,' and it's hard not to see its application in Fujifilm's approach to its X series cameras.

So, at its heart, the X100T shares its core features: the 16 megapixel CMOS sensor with X-Trans color filter array and excellent 23mm f/2 lens with its predecessor, the X100S. But almost everything beyond that has been reworked, re-assessed or refined.

Key Features:

  • 16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor (with on-sensor phase detection elements)
  • 35mm equivalent f/2 lens
  • Hybrid EVF with 2.3m dot LCD and more advanced overlays in optical mode
  • 3.0" 1.04m dot rear LCD (720 x 480 pixels)
  • Macro shooting down to 10cm (3.9")
  • Built-in Wi-Fi with remote control function
  • Rear command dial
  • Seven customizable buttons
  • Customizable Q menu
  • Built-in ND filter
  • Optional electronic shutter mode (increasing maximum shutter speed to 1/32000 sec)
  • 'Classic Chrome' film simulation mode
  • 1080p movies at 60, 50, 30, 25 and 24fps
  • Exposure control for movies
  • Built-in intervalometer
  • Stereo mic input (2.5mm-type)

Viewfinder improvements

Probably the biggest single change to the camera is the redesigned hybrid viewfinder. Part of X100's appeal was its clever viewfinder that had an electronic viewfinder mode or an optical mode in which shooting settings could be overlaid. The X100T's finder gains a 2.3m dot LCD panel but also adds a darkened 'tab' that can pop up in the optical finder, to allow projected information to be clearly seen in all lighting conditions. That tab means that the camera's Digital Split Image manual focus system can be used in conjunction with the optical viewfinder mode to give a rangefinder-like manual focus experience.

Cleverly, it has has been added without the need for any extra control points: the small lever on the front of the camera that switched to the electronic viewfinder in previous models can now also be nudged to the left to engage the in-viewfinder tab.

The X100T gains a pop-up tab (indicated as 'Optical image shielding' in this diagram), that allows the EVF information to be clearly projected into the viewfinder. This means an enlarged version of the focus point or the camera's 'Digital Split Image' focus guide can be seen in optical viewfinder mode, giving a rangefinder-like real-time focusing experience.

The optics of the viewfinder have been adjusted so that it provides coverage of 92% of the final image, when used in optical mode. This figure refers to the framing offered by the 'brightlines' shown in the finder - they're less than 100% because the actual field-of-view changes, based on focus distance: the 92% coverage is a compromise between the field-of-view and closest focus and at infinity. In addition, the camera gains the rapid 54 fps, 0.005sec lag screen refresh first seen in the X-T1.

Various other details of the viewfinder behavior have also been changed, including smaller, cleaner in-viewfinder graphics which shift to match the camera's orientation. Additionally the framing guides and focus point adjust to take parallax into account in real time, meaning you shouldn't have to focus and recompose at close focus distances. The viewfinder can also offer a wide dynamic range 'natural' live view mode as well as 'Shooting Effect Reflection' mode that shows the effect of the tone curve, white balance and color response of the current shooting settings.

As well as improvements to the viewfinder, Fujifilm has also upgraded the rear LCD. The X100T's 3.0", 1.04m dot panel is a big improvement over the 460k dot, 2.8" LCD that always looked like the weakest point of the X100S's specification.

Added features

The X100T also adds a fully electronic shutter mode. This enables totally silent operation and increases the maximum shutter speed to an impressive 1/32000 sec. There is a risk of rolling shutter when the electronic shutter is used, so it can be turned on and off if you prefer.

Viewed from above, the added range of the exposure compensation dial is immediately apparent. What can't be seen is that the aperture ring can be adjusted in 1/3EV steps, rather than whole-stop increments.

The X100T also sees substantial refinements when it comes to exposure. The camera's aperture ring has been modified, so that it can now be controlled in 1/3 f-stops, rather than the whole stops that the existing models offered. The exposure compensation dial has also been amended so that it now extends to +/- 3EV - something existing users had been calling out for. The other big change, in terms of exposure control is that the X100T retains the ability to apply exposure compensation when using Auto ISO in manual exposure mode, meaning that you can choose shutter speed, aperture and image brightness and let the camera do the work.

Although superficially similar, close examination reveals that the case (on the left) has been refined, with less of a protrusion behind the hotshoe. There's also a control dial and an additional customizable button, to its left. The knurling on the dials has been revised, too.

The X100T's button layout now more closely resembles those of the X-T1 - though those on the right aren't as recessed as those on its interchangeable lens cousin. The X100T gets a four-way controller, rather than the rather fiddly wheel featured on the previous model.

The other prominent change is the inclusion of a larger, more detailed rear LCD panel.

The back of the camera gains a full control dial, rather than the push/toggle switch on the back of the existing models (though the finer-grained control of the aperture ring reduces how often you'll need it). Usability is also increased with the decision to make seven of the camera's buttons customizable and to allow the user to change the options included in the camera's Q.Menu, to speed access to their most-used settings.

The camera's autofocus system has also been overhauled. The first addition is the inclusion of Face Detection - something we noted as missing from the existing models. There's also an option to tie spot auto exposure mode to the selected AF point, if you wish.

The final addition is the inclusion of the 'Classic Chrome' film simulation mode, first seen in the X30. Unlike existing film simulation modes this doesn't attempt to mimic one of Fujifilm's film stocks, instead offering a simulation of Kodachrome. As with previous X100 series cameras, the X100T allows film simulation bracketing or the ability to retrospectively apply different film simulations via its in-camera Raw converter.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
181
I own it
330
I want it
47
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 477
12
theprehistorian

Am I alone in finding the image quality on offer from this camera wholly inadequate, considering its price? I really don't understand it. I had the X100s for a while, and while I agree it looks funky and feels nice to use, it suffers from hideous lens flare and the files look weird and mushy, even without pixel peeping. It's just a fashion accessory, I'm afraid.

3 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer

The image quality is fantastic. I've had numerous images published using a combination of X-Pro, X100, and Xt1. I've never had a client complaint about image quality. Overpriced? That's an opinion. Fuji prices are designed to find the optimum intersection of demand and profit. If you are not getting good image quality, it's user error.

0 upvotes
aris14

25 years ago our photographer lost (or it was stolen) all his equipment in the airport along with his travel bag. A motorcycle expo had to be covered for our mag. The only camera left was a compact (Canon or Minolta I can't remember). So editor and photographer went to the press day with that "little monster", did whatever they could and returned with some 20 rolls of film. To our surprise their job was great. We slightly changed our concept of presentation due to lack of some poses we had in mind and the "little monster" could not cope and OK.
What I am saying is that photography in every aspect has traveled a long way since then.

1 upvote
zos xavius

The best camera is always the one that is in your hand.

0 upvotes
dynaxx

certain to be Minolta - John Glen took one to the moon !

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic

Did they change the lens design finally? Still has irritating focus by wire with no tactile feedback? No butter smooth helicoid focusing?/

"Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography" ... I don't know how focus by wire can someone connect with photography. Even most basic DSLR kit lens has better feeling in use than this "premium" 23/2.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Eugene232

nice camera but overpriced.
Ricoh GR and Nikon A 2- 3 times cheaper with the same IQ

3 upvotes
Pic Man

I agree that it's a bit overpriced. I think the comparison to the GR and A is a little unfair though. Those cameras have been out a while, comparing it to the X100 or X100s is fairer. They also offer less, no hybrid viewfinder, one stop slower lens etc.

0 upvotes
BattleBrat

"Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography" you want to reconnect? When I don't care I shoot with a 60D with a 24-105 f/4 L and I spray and pray. For ME for when I want to shoot, I pick up my EOS 1N film camera (with split prism focusing screen of course) slap on my 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss manual focus lens. Load up some TMax B&W film and go shooting, then develop the film in my apartment. THAT is how you connect.
People who buy this seemingly overpriced camera want to look "trendy" form over function. It is a common theme, generally with my generation (twenty somethings) to like older looking things including older film cameras despite the fact they generally perform worse (except for maybe a leica or Zeiss ikon) This camera is targeting those people. I chose a newer film camera because you have 36 shots, and you can't see them until you develop (makes you think before you shoot) , but I didn't want to sacrifice the metering modes a modern camera affords

0 upvotes
arndsan

I just went out with my x100s today. So much fun shooting with it. I pray that fujifilm will just carefully refine this camera further without doing some big silly changes. Ok - yes, the lens could be somehow f1.4 and the leaf shutter could have at least 1/2000sec wide open....please!!!

0 upvotes
Mike FL

+1 for "So much fun shooting with it" when I use prime lenses b/c my leg had to work a lot to get right composition. As well I have to change different prime lenses for different FL.

In the other words, FIXed FL lens got me more involve for shooting, but now I just use ZOOM most of the time to at least save some leg work even the zoom is not sharp and slow.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas

Most likely all f/1.4 would do is lower image quality and make the camera bigger and heavier. Small f/2 lenses have long been the choice of Leica shooters, hence the legendary 35mm Summicron (“Summicron” meaning “f/2”). Fuji had good reasons for choosing, and sticking with, the lens they did.

1 upvote
Mike FL

Fuji will add $200 for Summilux clone in next X100 may be if there is demand.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MQB

What I would like added is an Auto/Manual mode for the ND filter. Ricoh GR has it and it works fine.

2 upvotes
termix

The only thing I am missing and would like to see for other cameras as well is the performance of in camera battery charging through an USB cable. Is it slow or on the same level as a standard charger?

0 upvotes
vv50

depends on where the cable is plugged. 2 amps source is faster than 1 or 0.5 amp

0 upvotes
obsolescence

I don't think this camera merits the same 81% rating as the Olympus E-M5 II, especially due to the lack of interchangeable lens.

0 upvotes
Provia_fan

This arks back to the old argument, or non argument actually. They are different things. One is Rangefinder like and the other is SLR like. They are different things.

1 upvote
leno

The design is single fixed lens and in that role it performs well enough to be rated at 81%. The fact it is not the camera you want or desire does not effect its rating. It does not have an in built coffee machine but I'm not making it down because of that.

5 upvotes
Jan Erik Stokke

It is a different camera category, so they are not meant to be compared.

1 upvote
DanielFjall

Where is the beautiful light in a scene shot hand-held at 80th/sec, 6400, f2.0 on an APSC? That's a pretty boring scene to me. With or without IBIS. Get a tripod!

0 upvotes
Len_Gee

Needs a touchscreen LCD to set pinpoint focus quicker then it's outdated D pad.
Maybe in the X100TMK2.

0 upvotes
attomole

Almost perfect for what it is, the one thing I would like to see is a version with a really strong 1.4 lens with Sony's latest sensor, It lust laks that bit of background separation and rendering to get that pop you can get with a Leicia rig or Sony RX1

1 upvote
SSantana75

I like the idea of a f1.4 lens but rather they keep the X-trans as it produces (for me) nicer JPEGs SOOC than anything I've seen Sony sensor cameras produce. I'd much rather have the option to shoot RAW+TIFFs but that will never happen so the faster lens will make it perfect for me ;)

1 upvote
brendon1000

Get a Fuji XE-2 with a 35mm f1.4 or a 23mm f1.4 lens.

5 upvotes
Randy Benter

X-Trans cameras use a Sony sensor. Only the CFA is unique.

2 upvotes
SSantana75

Not quite the same, I already have the xt1 and have had the xe2. The problem is not the camera obviously but the way my head works as With the xe2 I'd be debating which lens to take etc, whereas with the X100F (four ;) That decision would be made for me :). The OVF is also a big factor for me.

0 upvotes
SSantana75

Randy, I think he meant a newer 24mp sensor.

0 upvotes
Boss of Sony

This could be a pretty decent camera if it had a 14-600mm f2.8 constant aperture Zoom lens on it.

0 upvotes
Ben Stonewall

Would that be a Sony lens?

1 upvote
ttran88

Nah it can be a Fuji made lens, we all know Fuji makes some really nice glass.

1 upvote
leno

And then the sensor would have to be tiny or the camera huge. Either way there are rubbish cameras like that if you want one.

0 upvotes
Jan Erik Stokke

You are joking, right?

0 upvotes
Papi61

You do realize that with only $200 more you can buy a Samsung NX1, right? I know, I know: apples and oranges, but still an extra $200 buy you the best APS-C camera on the market and the best 4K shooter under $3K. As opposed to retro chic with technology comparable to that of a 2010 camera?

Talk about overpriced...

Oh, and if you like the smaller, rangefinder-like form factor, the NX500 totally steals this camera's lunch for considerably less. Lens included.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Matz03

last time I checked the NX500 has nof viewfinder, how is that rangerfinder like form? you mean rangefinder like shape? NX500 and X100 is still apples and oranges

7 upvotes
ttran88

Thanks for the advertisment but I would still buy the fujifilm before I buy the nx1 or nx500.

14 upvotes
Papi61

Pretty sure you've never tried either...

2 upvotes
Matz03

you do realize the Samsung cameras, which seem to be very good, are very different cameras from X100's. That's like me saying I can get a D610 for the overpiced NX1, see what I did there? or I can get a medium format Pentax for less than a Leica. It's apples and pineapples!

I just came back from a short vacation shooting in eastern Europe and I can't think of a better camera to have in my hand than the original x100. I was telling my self when reviewing the files I should've shot with it more! For some things having the ovf, the leaf shutter, the small size, the look of the files is what makes these cameras so appealing to use. Having more pm, 4k, etc etc were features not needed or wanted.

8 upvotes
Terkwoiz

The NX1 is $200 more with no lens…

Include the least expensive Samsung NX 18-55mm lens and you have a kit that is $400 more than the x100t. It really is apples and oranges.

The NX1 isn't at all compact and is more similar to the fuji XT1, sony a6000 or the OMD series. The goal with the design of the x100t is to deliver a large sensor in the most compact form possible (thus the fixed lens design integrated into the body) while offering manual controls that facilitate an intuitive shooting experience. The x100t is focused on offering the best IQ, smallest size, and most useful shooting controls at the best possible price.

Cameras like the Sony RX-1 have a similar goal of 'offering the largest sensor in the most compact body possible while offering excellent shooting controls'. Since the lens elements of these cameras are partly built into the body of the camera the engineers are able to make the entire unit much more compact.

The NX1 isn't designed with the same goals in mind.

4 upvotes
Papi61

"That's like me saying I can get a D610 for the overpiced NX1"

Legitimate point. Except that the D610 is not a clear against with the NX1. And I say this as a D750 owner... For what the NX1 gives you, it's not overpriced at all.

0 upvotes
Papi61

Oops, sorry. I meant the D610 is not a clear winner against the NX1. In fact the D610 would only win in low light performance.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Terkwoiz

The NX1 has impressive and innovative tech.

The IQ of the D610 is higher period. So you must be referring to other factors when saying there isn't a clear winner.

1 upvote
ttran88

@papi61
Not only low light but d610 will also win in bokeh!!!

0 upvotes
Papi61

OK, obviously I meant anything that involves FF vs DX. And the difference is really minimal. But when it comes to features, the NX1 trounces the D610 in every aspect.

0 upvotes
captura

The NX500 has turned out be a lemon, sadly.

0 upvotes
robertbrockmann

Samsung makes fine dishwashers and microwaves. I like Samsung.

2 upvotes
SSantana75

The Sony A6000 comes very close to your Samsung yet it costs around half WITH kit lens. it is also much smaller and even closer in design (and dimensions) to the X100T but guess what, most people who want the Fuji won't bother with either of these options even if they were a third of the price. Each to their own and no argument is going to change the way individuals feel about certain things. Buy what you like and be happy with it and stop trying to convince others to follow your path.

1 upvote
Provia_fan

You said it yourself. Apples and oranges so that's a non starter as a topic from there on.

0 upvotes
George1958

but why would you? I would take the Fuji over any current or future Samsung. Its not that I think there is anything wrong with the Samsung, it may be a better camera etc, but for me the Fuji has all the right ingredients and looks good. It should not be be that looks and personal taste come in to it when evaluating a camera but most samsungs are butt ugly to my eyes and it does matter. Also Samsung don't have much of a foot print in my part of the UK, I would have to go out of my way to find one, and then there would be preciously little if any support and accessories. Fuji on the other hand are easy to get a hold of and the actual retail price is often better than the RRP.

0 upvotes
jvt

This is a somewhat poor review. The reviewer basically used this camera like a point & shoot...I guess that's what all cameras are...but this camera offers so much more after you learn how to use it.

And while the high ISO sample shots look superb, it would have been nice to include more than 1 shot taken at the basic 200 iso.

That said, I agree with the "silver" award. A digital camera these days, for that price, should have a better than average video function...certainly not a poor one.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler

I'd be fascinated to know what makes you draw this conclusion.

5 upvotes
jvt

Basically because the majority of the shots are poorly composed. One only needs to scan the Fuji x100/s/t galleries on Flickr or Tumblr to see the versatility of this camera...even with its single focal length.

No offense meant...these images look like something I'd take. I'm always somewhat disappointed after an outing with this camera...I'm better with zooms. The 35mm fl is deceivingly simple yet agonizingly complicated to get the most out of. The close-up function on this particular camera is also invaluable.

Your samples do a great job of showing the low light/high iso capabilities. All I'm saying is that a camera like this needs practice.

2 upvotes
Mike FL

IMHO, Composition is not so important for "Real world sample" from any given review site as long as it covers [all the] possible scenes.

For the night scenes/high-ISO, I like the "Panasonic Lumix GF7 sample gallery" the most b/c it *honestly* shows what "can or can't do" with:

- cloud on the sky - see #13 and #14
- Buildings - see #14 (#15)
- Street - #13
- Three -#8

Again, great job for "Panasonic Lumix GF7 sample gallery", and I hope all sample gallery can cover "Night scenes" like these.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-lumix-gf7-sample-gallery#page=1

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler

jvt: that's a big conclusion to draw from seven images.

I can assure you that I've shot with the X100T (and S) extensively, as well as the many months I spent when we reviewed the original X100.

1 upvote
Mike FL

Added:

Glad to see "X100 sample gallery" has some ISO-6400 People shots, but wish the X100's night street scenes can have what "GF7 sample gallery" has:

- cloud on the sky
- Trees
- Buildings in the dark

A given sample gallery will be a perfect for including low-light/high-ISO with:

- GF7's street shots, Plus
- X100's people shots

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

Again "Sample gallery" is about coverage, not about Composition.

Most importantly it is about *honestly* especially when presenting/selecting low-light/higher ISO shots.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

In terms of "Real world sample" for covering the low-light/high-ISO, the WORST is "Island life: Samsung NX500 Shooting Experience" just posted.

What a waste and/or totally waste of the time.

0 upvotes
jvt

Agreed, Mike FL...as a sample gallery the way you describe, it's fine.

Richard, as I said, no offense meant.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf

The Chrome Film Simulation photo with the pretty model on page 4 have horrible sharpness at ISO 400. Was it the effect, the 200% DR or just poor processing? I think my X-E1 can do a lot better at ISO 400.

0 upvotes
magneto shot

whoa looks a lot like my leica with noctilux, except its seems more agile, cheaper, fun and its a good ol fuji.

actually with the prices of used leica coming down, i totally recommend trying a used ME/M9, those lens are superbly built and solid regardless whether its noctilux or voigthlander. Elmarits are a steal and the experience of a real rangefinder is not something u want to be simulated after u used the real thing.

0 upvotes
Mike FL

PRO:
- As Retro/old as it can be as it looks like a LEICA M

CON:
- OVF on an rangefinder has no accuracy
- Can not be used for low angle b/c fixed LCD
- As Retro/old as it can be as it has NO IS, NO WiFi, but Fixed FL lens
- and ...

I like rangefinder b/c the classic Retro/old look, but I do NOT prefer Old/Retro on functionality/useability.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Papi61

You forgot one important CON:

- Ridiculous price for what (little) it offers

11 upvotes
Provia_fan

You forgot one other major thing:

This is not a rangefinder, it just looks like one. So your first CON "OVF on a rangefinder has no accuracy" is a non issue.
Besides, having a load of cheap rangefinders myself, I can say that's a load of bull. If anything you'll have to adjust the rangefinder maybe once or twice in a camera's lifetime.If ever. And this is with the cheapo ones.
Unless it's an uncoupled rangefinder, which for those you can get a hotshoe rangefinder or you knock you cameras around like the cans attached to a newlywed couple's car bumper.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Provia_fan

The other thing, the reason why Retro works it is more to do with functionality and user experience and also it forces the manufacturers to use sturdier materials. You may not like the interface yourself but the vast majority, particularly those who have worked through the film to digital transition find it particularly intuitive. I do not own a X100 but I have tried them as well as the X-Pro 1 and took to them in an instant.

Can you point to a current retro that is all cheapo plastic? No.

0 upvotes
Mike FL

Provia_fan;

X100T has OVF and EVF. Other than OVF has no accuracy, I do not like that the part of the view blocked by Lens when use OVF.

I had couple of rangefinder including OLY PEN. I do not recall the lens blocks OVF (may be it did as it was too long ago I could recall).

Retro styled camera does not have to have NO modern touch, IBIS/OIS, Flip LCD, WiFI, GPS, Touch screen. etc.

We are in the digital age now, NO?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Provia_fan

But a lens blocking an OVF has no effect on accuracy. Now if you were to say it does not give you a full view of a scene that's different. I do have Olympus RFs and the lenses are visible in the finder. To solve that, there were hotshoe finders.
Other than that, and addressing some other comments in this comments section, Zone Focussing seemed to work for almost everyone, so accuracy really depended on you not the camera.
As for your "Retro styled camera does not have to have NO modern touch, IBIS/OIS, Flip LCD, WiFI, GPS, Touch screen. etc.
We are in the digital age now, NO?"

I fail to see where you are going with this statement apart from the double negative.

I think the Fujifilm X100 series is plenty modern and so is the also retro styled X30 which has your Wifi and whatnot.We're in the digital age but it doesn't mean that everything retro is unusable.Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography and are not the plasticky "modern" toys you probably wish for.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

"lens blocking an OVF has no effect on accuracy" are two totally different issues. "No accuracy" is for composition. You should know this better as you had rangefinder. OVF on the SLR is different in terms of accuracy for composition if you ever had a SLR.

"Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography and are not the plasticky "modern" toys you probably wish for."

"plasticky "modern" toys"? what are you talking about.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

One more thing for "Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography", accurately I only saw one used X100 who is Japanese while I traveled.

0 upvotes
Provia_fan

There's no such thing as accuracy for composition, there's "not being able to see a scene to 100% in a viewfinder". Composition is not a component of a camera to be accurate, composition is your vision.
As for if I ever had a SLR? I got 55 of them.

0 upvotes
Mike FL

From what I can see, you forgot how to use rangefinder's OVF to compose accurately for objects near or far.

Objects *near* or *far*, ring a bell?

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Provia_fan

It does actually. The bells to take you to the asylum. You see things there are not there and things that you should there you don't see.

For many a rangefinder, close up attachments exist. Granted it's not the first thing I would pick up for macro shots, but I never head problems composing in any far away objects. Plus as I said, there are external finders for rangefinders.

Also your experiences do not reflect reality. Just because you saw one guy using one in your travelling doesn't mean that he is the only guy that uses a X100. Who knows, maybe you only travel to one place and one place only, maybe you live with that guy, who the hell knows! :D I see plenty in London including loads of street shooters.

You can try to wriggle your way any way you want, it will never make you right.

0 upvotes
Mike FL

FWIW, I do not miss composition.

When I got a new rangefinder, I took some test shots for objects near and far, then I know exactly the difference between OVF and the actual.

I was in London during x-mas couple of years ago, and I never saw a X100, but I did see couple of Leica M from a group from China.

BTW; I do not understand your argument, such as using an " attachments" and "external finders" to correct OVF is NOT a CON of OVF.

"You can try to wriggle your way any way you want, it will never make you right." is right on for you. YES?

Moreover, you need to lean the BASIC logical. We were talk bout OVF's accuracy. NO?

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Provia_fan

"FWIW, I do not miss composition"

What do you mean? Are you saying your photos are terrible? :D

"Moreover, you need to lean the BASIC logical. We were talk bout OVF's accuracy. NO?"

Errr... do you read your own posts?

0 upvotes
Mike FL

@ Provia_fan;

How old are you?

0 upvotes
JaimeA

It is hard to believe that in this time of advanced camera development this camera does not have stabilization of any kind.

7 upvotes
nerd2

It has a short prime lens so it's mostly fine in practice.

8 upvotes
Provia_fan

What he said. 35mm f2 lens, do you really need it? with the one of the cleanest high ISO settings you'll find in any camera?

7 upvotes
Andrew Butterfield

For video you need it. To hand hold at half a second you need it. Or even at a tenth and below. No matter how wide angle it is.

6 upvotes
Provia_fan

Yes but if you want to do video, you are not gonna get a rangefinder are you?Or rangefinder like camera

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
nerd2

Most subject moves around, and for stationary subjects you can take a long burst to get one sharp image usually

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

That's the beauty of digital photography. With a virtually unlimited number of shots and no processing cost, if you shoot enough three's bound to be a good one. (This is meant to be a joke.)

1 upvote
5inchfloppy

@Andrew Butterfield

If you're shooting video with any Fuji X100 series, you're using the wrong tool for the job

1 upvote
SSantana75

@5inchfloppy ha! I still don't understand why people who shoot video even bother reading Fuji X reviews. I for one don't need it nor care for it and are quiet happy Fuji keeps it sub-par to filter out that crowd. Funnily enough if you look at Flickr (which represents a more accurate cross-section of shooters than other specialised photographers sites) the standard of images on any of the Fuji X groups far exceeds that of most other brands, like it or not most Fuji shooters don't give a toss about video and are all about still.

0 upvotes
straylightrun

To those saying they don't want this camera to have stabilisation because it's not needed: you can turn stabilisation off. Meanwhile anyone else who is doing low light work or video, it really should have stabilisation at this price point.

0 upvotes
BartyLobethal

Why did it only get a Mauve award when it's the super bestest camera in the Milky Way Bar and should have got a Paisley award!?!?! It's pretty obvious that dpreview are only interested in Yak husbandry etc etc.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
nerd2

Considering he price they should really have put 1.4 lens. Id rather use x-a1+35.4 combo than this, or now dirt cheap eos m plus 22mm f2.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
BobbySan

I love my S, the T 'upgrade' seems a bit strange to me in terms of progress - too little too soon.
Sad to hear that Fuji may stop firmware upgrades for my S now though.

However the X100 series has made me love photography again - I use mine rangefinder style and to the annoyance of my friends and fellow Leica users I prefer it to my old M cameras

7 upvotes
captura

At least Fuji offers updates. Sony prefers to force you to get a new model every year or two, rather than update your camera. And oh, Sony also like to sell you apps. which should have been included in the price of the camera. Good for Fuji !

0 upvotes
Dougbm_2

81% and only Silver seems pretty mean. Should the score and award have some sync? eg Gold over 80% Silver over 70%

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

If they were directly linked, then the award wouldn't tell you anything: it'd just be the score repeated with less precision.

The award is the reviewer's overall perspective, based on the factors spelled out in the conclusion. Logically it ties very closely to the score (it's hard to imagine a camera scoring in the low 70s getting a gold and anything scoring in the high 80s would have to be physically painful to use to stop it getting a Gold if its images gained it such a high grade).

0 upvotes
lolopasstrail

They are comparing this to its only competition, a 2-year old version of itself, with relatively minor feature upgrades. ur

When the X100 came out, it had the potential to be a game changer, and it's worse enemy turned out to be itself.

Today this camera is known quantity, and is easily matched by other more flexible models given the price point.

In 2015 this should be crushing the original X100, but it's just not. Consequently, as fine and glorious a machine as this is in March, 2015, it's not the unique standout it could have been 4 years ago.

Consequently, the rating is justified.

1 upvote
Boss of Sony

This is certainly a fun and attractive camera to use and own. Just about and fun and attractive as a camera can get. However, I feel its capabilities as a photographic tool are slightly over-rated.

6 upvotes
Jose Olivares
0 upvotes
Segaman

Best way to find out, is rent one for a week and TRY IT first.
Fuji makes some of the finest cameras in that style.

0 upvotes
Jose Olivares

The X100s is a good camera, but I also think as Boss of Sony on: "...its capabilities as a photographic tool are slightly over-rated". I own two Fujis; the X-E1 and the X-A1, with five lenses, and believe it or not, I prefer the X-A1 over the X-E1 because it is smaller. I wish one day Fuji brings a camera like the X-E2 to the X-A1 size.
I have also rented the X-100S a few times. It feels good in your hands but that's it. I find no difference between the other ones. Au contraire, mon ami. One fixed lens against the flexibility of multiple lenses of different focal lengths makes it undesirable (to me).
Cheers.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

I like the x100T because it's reduced the x100S to £400, and with the GR at under £400 both can be had for less than the T.

5 upvotes
captura

And there's a store here in Toronto selling the competitive Nikon Coolpix 'A' for only $ CAN 299.

0 upvotes
bumblebeezack

It's great that DPR took the time to write a review for the X100T, although I felt that somehow, the reviewer isn't exactly sure what to make of the camera.
It was mentioned that the camera is great tool for documenting life and in a way that's true with it's relatively fast lens and large sensor in a small form factor. So much so that many felt this was a great camera for "street". However I feel that the camera is so much more. I had it for a few months and used it for almost any kind of shooting, I can.

Have a look here https://flic.kr/s/aHsk6DDj2k

It's by no means the best example, of course, but seriously, I have a D810 that I use mainly for work as comparison and this camera blows me away quality-wise if one takes a more deliberate approach to taking a photo.

Don't miss an opportunity to own a great "point and shoot". Try the camera first, if you can. It's pretty amazing and can be so much more, I'm sure, in worthier hands then mine!

7 upvotes
ignatio

I think your hands, and eyes, are quite worthy...
Great images!
Still enjoying my S version.

1 upvote
bumblebeezack

Heh! Thank you for the compliment. I feel the camera can do so much short of an a very specialized form of shoot like say fast action sports or wildlife like shooting birds.

I tend to read a lot about using the camera being used for street photography but it's great for landscape too! It's light to work with, and can be rock steady on a light, carbon fiber tripod for example. Has great dynamic range. Bracketing of shots based on exposure, film simulation and more. Has a handy timer when taking long exposures and work with a simple mechanical remote. The camera will be sad if we limit it :)

0 upvotes
Resom

"the reviewer isn't exactly sure what to make of the camera"
I think you're right.

"It was mentioned that the camera is great tool for documenting life and in a way that's true with it's relatively fast lens and large sensor in a small form factor. So much so that many felt this was a great camera for "street"."

camera with rangefinder > only good for street photography, nothing else. Or making snap shots.
FF-reflex camera > good for professionals / semi professionals. Or making snap shots.
iPhone > unbeleavable innovative picture. Or making snap shots.
Pentax > LED and making snap shots underwater.
(just joking ;)

1 upvote
phlowtography

Amazing T set you got there on flickr, thanks for sharing. I also appreciate the original sizes to check IQ (same as S).
I've been using my S for exactly one year now as my one-camera-one-lens, and didn't miss my other other cameras, nor other focal lengths.
You're absolutely right that the 100 series is so much more than the fancy snapshot camera for street. It delivers amazing results in pretty much any shooting situation if one knows how to work this camera.

0 upvotes
Thermidor

Those are some really lovely shots. I've had the chance to use the original X100, which took great pictures, but had an infuriating user experience. I'm glad to see the S and T pretty much ironed out the issues, and was quite impressed with Fuji's X20 and X30 as well. The only problem for me is the price point. While I don't deny the stunning image quality, I can't afford one, and even if I did have the money, I'd rather put it onto a workhorse.

0 upvotes
bumblebeezack

I have to agree with the general comment that it's quite expensive. I definitely had buyer's remorse initially when the box is in my hands. But that was soon forgotten after spending about a week with the camera and getting a feel of the camera's potential as a "compact camera". But Fuji's prices with their X series camera and lens is kinda "premium" right now and will probably remain so as it gains popularity.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

I think there's a risk that you're misunderstanding me and I'm misunderstanding you.

By documenting my life, I mean shooting everything I do and everything that goes on around me. I'm not clear how this differs from what you're suggesting.

0 upvotes
captura

Of the genre, I prefer my X10 which produces superior JPEGS and decent videos. Mostly because it was inexpensive. And it also because it has that Fuji 'rangefinder look.'

0 upvotes
bumblebeezack

Fair enough Richard. Perhaps we may be saying the same thing but a little differently. I guess to be more specific, I would like to suggest that to those who may be interested in the X100T, that it's not really the one trick pony that many reviewers seems to suggest when it comes to the X100T. Reviewers tend to lean heavily on the Fuji as a camera to shoot every day stuff. Which of course emphasizes the really expensive price tag that comes along with it. I'll suggest 2 other uses with the camera where one can achieve really great results, that may not seem obvious if reviewers were to not delve deeper into it or may seem outright dismissive towards other more advanced use with the camera. Of course this is not meant as a stab at you personally or your review. I have no intention to mean that.

0 upvotes
bumblebeezack

Firstly, the x100T is a great camera to shoot landscape. Yes, the lens focal length may be a little limiting, but it's really sharp by f/5.6 and distortion is really low. The camera is light and is easy to handle both on and off tripod. There's no need for a hefty tripod with a heavy duty ballhead. In fact I use the manfrotto pixie mini a lot with it. It has an ND filter with 3 stops. So with stopped down aperture, one can shoot dreamy water stuff. In fact I stack an nd1000 filter on it for 13 stops reduction of light. That way I don't have to stop down the lens too much and risk diffraction. It has a really easy to use exposure bracketing 3 shots. Makes it really easy to use so that one can create good hdr photos and with the leaf shutter, vibration between shots is also kept to a minimum. Basically, imagine an aps-c sensor camera with superb lens, that weighs less then 500gm. With a light tripod, the whole thing weighs less then 2kg! With good results to boot.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways (in which case I'll see if there's a good way to re-phrase my shooting experience).

I see the X100 series as cameras that let you get what used to be DSLR-only image quality wherever and whenever. It's the serious camera you actually have with you.

2 upvotes
bumblebeezack

2nd, without being way too verbose, portraits can be shot ala strobist at an ambient crushing flash sync speed of 1/1000s. That's the leaf shutter doing its thing. Most DSLRs do 1/250s or 1/320s at reduced power. That means whatever flash one uses on a dslr with 1/250s sync speed will be twice more powerful when used with the Fuji at 1/1000s. And one has the built in 3 stop ND filter to prevent over exposure of ambient when shot at f/2 at 1/1000s. Imagine the possibilities! All this from a point and shoot... I know you mentioned the sync speeds as well Richard but I think some may not really "get" why you mentioned it. But really this isn't a knock on your review. Reviewing stuff is tough and I do appreciate reviewers like yourself who does it.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Joachim Gerstl

I'm sure it is a great camera. Loved my X100. I sold it but most likely will replace it with the X100T or its successor because I always wanted a black X100.

I also have a Ricoh GR. I'm with the people that state that the Ricoh is great to shoot and nobody thinks it a serious camera but the Ricoh GR can't replace the Fuji X100 and vice versa. They are completely different cameras and shooting experience is completely different too.

For some the Ricoh GR might be better camera for others the Fuji X100 would be the by far better choice. They really can't be compared but I did for those who don't have the chance to try them out side by side.

2 upvotes
zzzxtreme

ricoh gr is still good after all these years ? im curious. really like to own one

0 upvotes
In hydraulis

Announced on 17th April 2013. Not even two years.

With Ricoh's ongoing firmware refinements, including the addition of new features and functionality, it has only improved since then.

A mini-marvel of a camera. Reasonably priced on day one, and a downright bargain now. Go get one and stop wondering what it'd be like.

2 upvotes
zzzxtreme

thanks. it's in my wishlist now!

0 upvotes
Graham Austin

the most recent firmware makes the GR's auto focus amazingly fast, I really enjoy using it, pocket sized, great IQ and built like a tank.
Check the studio comparisons, it performs well against pretty much anything on sharpness.
Sub £400 it's a bargain.

2 upvotes
ZoranHR

I m so satisfied with it I think everyone should have one! :-)

0 upvotes
Gesture

I think this is much more than a clever viewfinder. Fuji is the only company that has tried to modernize the optical viewfinder. One of the reasons we still "argue" so much about the viewfinder is not just the focus aspects of phase focus , but because the OVFs haven't really modernized. Hats off to Fuji and, with its rebirth of pellicle mirror, Sony. The ratings are how well a camera competes with its class-in which case Fuji in my opinion should be a Gold.

12 upvotes
RStyga

It's a very nice camera and all but the RAW output is still fuzzy with pixel-level artifacts due to the X-Trans structure. Fujifilm needs to resolve the RAW conversion otherwise X-Trans will become synonymous to low high-ISO noise at the expense of "double"-AA-filter style IQ. At a time where manufacturers remove the AA filter to achieve a crisper image, Fujifilm advertises a sensor with no need for an AA filter but -in essence- with an even more blurry IQ than traditional Bayer sensor that have an AA filter. No moire is great but I'm not sure why one would prefer an X-Trans camera since applying PP on a Bayer sensor can remove moire completely and obtain the same "blurry" image that an X-Trans camera produces.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
cgarrard

Agreed, Fuji and Adobe need to have a drink and work out the details.

4 upvotes
The Silver Fox

I believe a better solution is simply to abandon the X-Trans sensor and return to a Bayer sensor. But I suspect Fuji is too invested in X-Trans to do this. Too bad, since a next-gen X-100 with a Bayer sensor would be remarkable.

4 upvotes
zorgon

It's well known that Iridient developer is able to achieve far better results than Adobe with the Fuji X-trans sensor in RAW. I've read comments from some people who use Iridient developer to covert the Fuji RAW files to 16-bit TIFF and then use Lightroom to edit these. That just sounds like far too much effort for me, not to mention an unnecessary use of disk space.

1 upvote
cgarrard

TSF- I dont agree. Other manufacturers are handling the X-Trans sensor output just fine, Rawtherapee is FREE and does a much better job than ACR dealing with the raw files. Iridient as Zorgon notes, also does great with it. Not to mention what the Fuji cameras are bundled with - Silkypix. I don't like using the latter but ... there you go. The issue is Adobe here.

1 upvote
RStyga

Is there is a Fujifilm output converted sample using Rawtherapee to compare?

0 upvotes
captura

The Ricoh GR and Coolpix 'A' soldier on with Bayer 16mp sensors and no AA filter. Better results here, compared to the X100T.

0 upvotes
captura

"Movie capture has poor resolution and spectacular moire" - for movie mode, the X10, with no X-trans sensor, may still be the best of the Fuji fixed-lens series.

1 upvote
jaxson

Oh that does look good.

Having an 'A' setting on both the Aperture and Shutter Speed dials is a nice.

Looks like retro done well, stripping it back to the basic values, rather than pretending wrapping it in silver plastic makes it retro.

0 upvotes
chillgreg

I have ZERO regrets choosing the incredible Ricoh GR over the Fuji. Half the price, and in many ways the better camera!

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
Thematic

So?

Why troll on a Fuji review?

This type of posting that shouts "me me me" has to stop.

Watch how many likes my post gets vs yours.

51 upvotes
white shadow

You are absolutely right. I did the same and have no regrets. The Ricoh GR is so much smaller and nicer to handle when you go shooting. The good thing is it does not look like a serious camera that people are not bothered with you taking a few photos here and there. That is very important if you want to shoot candid moments or in areas where photography is discouraged. One can carry it around everyday without any burden. The X-100T is still quite big and would attract attention. However, there are many people who want more attention than the peace of not being noticed.

The 21mm wide angle converter on the GR is another very useful tool to have when one is shooting in a tight space or for landscape. It is a very well made converter and will make the GR so much more versatile.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Mike FL

Nikon A was $399 a while ago, and now backs to $499. $399 is not too bad comparing to X100t is more than tripling the price.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
cgarrard

The GR needs an optical finder, once it does- then the circle from film to digital in GR form is complete.

Yes its a great camera, but both are, really. I don't try to compare one to the other because one fits in your pants pocket, and one does not.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
captura

The 'A' may be the best choice, for the money.

1 upvote
chillgreg

@Thematic ME ME ME!!!

I gave your post a Like too, so you feel better about yourself.

It's called discussion you bloody wombat...

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
cgarrard

captura- not sold on the A over the GR, personally... the interface, controls, and grip on the GR alone is a huge selling point over the A.

4 upvotes
MiguelFanclub

It is not in manual focusing (just because of that I consider one a toy and the other one a real camera), also not in focusing in poor light condition (just forget about it on the ricoh), 1/1000 sync with flash on the fuji.... there are many more but lets start with those. (I own both x100T and Ricoh GR with the latest firmware)

0 upvotes
captura

What's a "bloody wombat?" Something from down unda, mebbe?
LOL.

1 upvote
Segaman

He is allowed to speak out for his product, just like 35% of people do on this forum.
Is it a cool thing, not sure.

0 upvotes
chillgreg

Ren Kockwell called the X100T the best camera in the world. Which gives even more credence to the DPR Silver award. Well done Richard!

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
22 upvotes
Richard Butler

Sadly I can only give you one 'Like.'

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
chillgreg

:)))))))))))))

2 upvotes
Papi61

Not to trash the X100T, of which I know very little about since I'm not too interested in this format, but not everybody here considers Ken Rockwell an authoritative source. This is the guy who often makes draconian judgment calls, without even having seen --let alone tested-- the product he's "reviewing."

3 upvotes
cgarrard

Ken loves to sensationalize. There is only one best camera in the world, the one a photographer chooses to get the job done- and the camera chosen does just what's expected.

2 upvotes
chillgreg

@Papi61 He's a bloody idiot. Which is my point... ;)

4 upvotes
The Silver Fox

Really? Do we need to resort to ad hominem attacks? Whatever you might think of Ken Rockwell’s opinions doesn’t justify personal attacks. Most unattractive.

9 upvotes
nerd2

He reviews cameras thats not even released - enough said.

2 upvotes
djrocks66

@chillgreg It would be interesting if you rented a X100T, used it for a week, and reported your thoughts afterwards.

1 upvote
Papi61

I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's not "the best camera in the world"... ;)

If Ken Rockwell can pass judgment without even seeing the product he's commenting on, so can I... ;)

@chillgreg sorry, sometimes it's hard to detect sarcasm in here. As strange as it may seem, the guy actually does have supporters. But then again so do the worst politicians in the world. ;)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
cgarrard

"But then again so do the worst politicians in the world"

I toast to that!

Carl

2 upvotes
MiguelFanclub

I havent owned a digital Leica (I did have a film one) but I believe the x100T is the most similar thing you can buy these thays, and not talking about aesthetics. I agree 100% that it is the best camera in the world right now (not counting leica).

0 upvotes
Segaman

Hey silverfox
The reviewer back him up on this nasty remark.
That is a shame, but hey......what can we do about it?
There should be a dislike button

2 upvotes
cgarrard

Kens site should have a dislike button.

1 upvote
BrianHB

Just look at the X100T sample photos on Ken's site. He seems to really like that waxy skin look. Probably explains the worlds best ever rating.

1 upvote
fmian

I loved the entire concept of the X100 series. The hybrid finder is the only thing in the last several years of camera releases that has excited me.
Good to see this release tweaking the usability of the camera.
My only personal wish would be for the lens to be a little easier to control. I'd be happy if it was slightly bigger with the aperture ring and focus ring more prominent. Also a good focus ring travel distance that stops at either end of the scale so pre focusing can be done without looking at the camera.
Basically more tuned for manual focus use.
But... still tempted to get one of these.
If only I didn't just order 20 rolls of Fujifilm...

6 upvotes
Mike FL

+1 for "if it was slightly bigger with the aperture ring", X100 is copying Leica M including the aperture ring, but Leica M's aperture ring is bigger such as M9P below.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_m9p

2 upvotes
Dougbm_2

A great an idea as the hybrid viewfinder is and as nice as the view is though it is no competition for a DLSR viewfinder where you get an accurate view of your composition. The Fuji's framing lines are approximate. As a result I use the EVF a lot.

0 upvotes
fmian

True, although sometimes situations call for a smaller more discrete leaf shutter option. I would use it for street. DSLR for everything else.

0 upvotes
Dennis

The "rangefinder" OVF was never meant to compete with a DSLR viewfinder, which in turn does not compete when it comes to seeing outside the frame when looking through the viewfinder...

0 upvotes
darngooddesign

Considering you can see the waxy skintones on most of the ISO6400 shots it might be worth mentioning the workaround posted on the Fuji X board.

In Aperture Priority, shoot RAW at 1600 with -2EC (to raise the shutter speed) and then push the exposure 2 stops with the camera's RAW converter.

Beautiful High ISO JPGs right from he camera...problem solved.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 59 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Mike FL

Most effective way for low-light is using IBIS or OIS to lower the ISO couple more stops, but X100 does not have IS.

Too bad for a Leica M alike and nice looking camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign

Not sure I understand, would;t dropping the ISO a couple of more stops just give you really underexposed photo? All you need to do is shoot the Fuji to 1600 to eliminate the skin tone issue.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

Decreasing shutter speed to lower the ISO for the same EV.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign

Which gives blurred subjects if they move. Relying on IS, in lens or in body, in the dark is only good for static subjects.

4 upvotes
Mike FL

One of the selling point of OM-D E-M5 II is 5 stop IBIS, other wise Pana GH4 will be the best selling weather sealed M43 body b/c better build quality + much better video.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
darngooddesign

Image Stabilization is a handy thing, but using it with slower shutter speeds does nothing for moving subjects.

1 upvote
Mike FL

For saving the argument, tell us how many % of the photos are moving subjects from any given set of DPR's "Real world samples" from any given cameras.

BTW: If you shoot different static subjects FAST such as walk around street shoot, you better to use couple stop fast than 1/FL second if w/o any IS b/c you do NOT have the time to hold the camera still.

No?

One more thing, May be you can, but most people can not get better video w/o IS.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

darngooddesign;

I agree with you for underexposure that I do too even in the lower ISO b/c it is easier for PP for shadow and preserve highlight. NOT b/c waxy skintones and/or water painting color which is cost by HIGHER ISO.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vadims

Very nice review *size*, DPR.

I have to say this tells me all I really need to know. All those charts with minute differences in dynamic range and such? Not my cup of tea.

DPR, IMHO, has developed a bit of schizophrenic nature over time (please understand I'm not using "schizophrenic" pejoratively here): on one hand, you produce so overwhelmingly detailed reviews these days that I wonder if there are any people reading all of them; on the other hand, you post more and more completely non-technical stuff.

Real issue with both is that it means lesser number of tech reviews; and, which is much worse, by the time a review do appear, it is irrelevant.

So, again, thanks for the sane approach you've taken with x100t (even though I do understand it was caused by the the fact the camera is a relatively minor upgrade more than by anything else...)

1 upvote
Richard Butler

We're trying to strike a middle ground between the two states. Focus on the photographically relevant while also covering the technical.

2 upvotes
vadims

I fully understand that.

But won't shorter reviews help covering tech side of things more efficiently?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

That's what we're aiming for, yes.

1 upvote
cgarrard

Aim small, miss small :).

0 upvotes
RichRMA

Resolution looks more like 12mp than 16, but noise control is great!

1 upvote
The Davinator

I find the 16mp xtrans sensor resolves as much as the 18mp Canon sensor....nothing about this is 12mp. Not quite sure what you are looking at.

5 upvotes
RichRMA

Some of the studio images, Fuji versus Olympus E-M5II. It probably varies, I didn't compare everything.

1 upvote
Boxbrownie

Comparing the E-M5II with this camera in the studio scene @200 JPG & RAW......the Fuli is completely lost, either something is wrong or something is wrong! ;)

0 upvotes
retro76

I don't get Fuji color. I mean sometimes depending upon the subject matter it looks good, but most of the time it's rather artificial looking and the cyan skies for example are horrendous. Does anyone else see this or am I just biased from using other brands ????

Outside of that, I really enjoyed the review. Well written.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
M Lammerse

I always feel the Fuji colors look exceptional well and are (if you can say that of pixels) filmalike.

I have an old study mate who does a lot of weddings and he still sometimes moaning about the excellent skincolor out of the Fuji S5 he used.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
palinode

I'm so glad to see a review of the X100T! I've been shooting with one for about five months now and it's an excellent and surprisingly versatile camera, and a real improvement over the X100S.

One thing to note: I'm confused about the bug involving digital split MF assist hijacking AF. I tried to reproduce that problem on my camera but couldn't. Which I suppose is a good thing?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

We're in discussion with Fujifilm at the moment. The camera we believed to be production-spec appears to behave differently to the ones people are buying.

If they've fixed this glitch I'd be delighted to amend the review.

1 upvote
Richard Butler

We've gone out and grabbed a production example of the X100T (which we believed ours was). That problem has indeed been fixed and has been removed from the commentary.

2 upvotes
maxnimo

If this camera had a 50mm equiv. lens I'd be far more likely to buy it.

I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.

6 upvotes
AlexisH

Cameras with a fixed lens are not for everyone by design.

4 upvotes
Caerolle

Me too. Well, I wouldn't buy this camera, but I would be very interested in an APS-C compact with a 50-mm equivalent lens. Most of my shots are with a 50 prime. Seems most people prefer the wider view, though. I actually might even take shots with my mobile, if it had a longer focal length, instead of a 28-mm equiv.

2 upvotes
OrdinarilyInordinate

Are you confusing equivalents? This camera has a 23mm lens, which gives a field of view / magnification equivalent to that of 34.5mm in full frame terms. The response above is saying actual 50mm lens, which is going to be 75mm field of view/magnification equivalent. 50mm field of view on full frame would be given by a 33mm lens on this camera.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
piratejabez

Fuji makes an adaptor, though it would add considerably to the depth of the camera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1032495-REG/fujifilm_tcl_x100_telephoto_conversion_lens.html

0 upvotes
Jae Cho

Preference for 50mm focal length does not make you an old-fashioned, outdated, or an oddball. I recently purchased the teleconverter for my x100s, and it works very well. It does add some bulk and weight, but no noticeable disadvantage in terms of image quality or speed.

4 upvotes
ThatCamFan

To be honest? I bought it, I also had the X100s, but I have to agree with you, a 50mm = heaven.

2 upvotes
Eric Hensel

"Cameras with a fixed lens are not for everyone by design."
This is a valid response to the original post?
I'm really getting old.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

Did you know...cameras with fixed lenses are, by design, not for people who prefer interchangeable lenses. But, being an old-timer you probably had that figured out.

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel

That has nothing to do with his point.
He's saying he'd like *this* camera, with a *different* lens --not interchangeable lenses...smh...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
AlexisH

Cameras with fixed lenses are by design not for people who would prefer a different lens.

Rather than saying "I wish this had a different lens", you should say "I wish they also made a model with a different lens". Two different kind of requests.

0 upvotes
Caerolle

I know there is the adapter, but that adds another several hundred dollars to a camera that is already far too expensive.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

I'm with maxnimo. I never understood the myth that you need a 35mm lens - or equivalent - for street photography. You have to get uncomfortably close to people, which may cause the distortion inherent to wide-angle lenses to settle in. Besides, objects in the background can appear too small. And - not that I'm a 'bokeh' fanatic, but it's a factor - you get too much depth of field. I'd say 35mm is terrible for street photography. Curiously, Cartier-Bresson thought that too: he used standard lenses.

0 upvotes
maxnimo

AlexisH, you just reminded me of a perfect solution - Fuji needs to produce 15 of these cameras, each with a different fixed lens. I'm sure no one will mind lugging around 15 cameras in a huge suitcase.:)

1 upvote
AlexisH

@maxnimo: They just need to produce cameras for which there is some demand. Why would people buy 15 cameras when they are interested in a single focal length? Those that need 15 focal lengths should probably buy an ILC or a fixed zoom lens compact.

At the end of the day, the question is one of demand. The X100 with its 35mm equivalent has sold *very* well - I know a lot of people who got one. I like 50mm too, but I see more people prefer wide angles than a normal lens and that's what companies have noticed too.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo: 35mm is meant to be used to capture a person as well as the environment. You're not meant to take head and shoulder portraits. Look up "35mm lens photography" for more commentary on why some people prefer this focal length.

HCB was HCB - people can rub a 50mm lens all day without replicating his results - the man was thinking about what he wanted to capture with what he had rather than buying equipment to emulate some other guy.

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel

"Rather than saying "I wish this had a different lens", you should say "I wish they also made a model with a different lens". Two different kind of requests."
You're actually serious? They have functionally the same end.
I'm done, as well.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

Alexis, I was talking about street photography, not portraits. I have done lots of 'street photography' (or rather 'photography in the streets') with a 34mm efl lens and with standard lenses, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
I cited HC-B not because I'm trying to emulate his photography - that'd be pretentious at best - but because he'd feel uncomfortable imposing himself on people - which would be mandatory if he'd used a 35mm lens. Some people don't enjoy having a lens pointed at their nose, that's all. Sometimes it's better not to get too close.
The Fuji X100's ethos was to be the perfect tool for street photography, but I think otherwise. Of course you are free to disagree with me, but I believe I'm entitled to an opinion.

0 upvotes
AlexisH

"I was talking about street photography, not portraits. "

You mentioned getting close and getting distortion, so I'm not sure exactly what kind of street photography you are doing. but the bottom line is that many people prefer to use a 35mm lens over a 50mm and they don't get any distortion because they don't get that close to their subjects.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

Alexis, you win. 35mm have no distortion and are the perfect tool for street photography. Are you happy now?
(I keep forgetting I should never counter a troll...)

1 upvote
Caerolle

Not a troll, something worse: a pedant.

2 upvotes
Eric Hensel

The vortex...

0 upvotes
malboni

How can DP review possibly review an upgrade and score it lower than the previous model when it is clearly improved in many ways.
X100S achieved 81% and received Gold rating yet the X100T received the same score but only Silver.. !!!!!!!
Sometimes you completely miss the point of improvement and baffle me !!!!!!

0 upvotes
Barney Britton

There's a very simple explanation for that - time (and the competitive landscape) moves on. Gold/Silver awards are not intrinsically tied to the scoring. This has been explained many many many many many many many many times and there's a link to the full explanation of our scoring system here:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

26 upvotes
minzaw

Scoring is dynamic as one moves along the same path

1 upvote
Papi61

I totally agree with dpreview: scoring should reflect the entire market the moment a piece of equipment is evaluated. If a gold-awarded camera was a breakthrough when it was released and fully deserved that rating, a couple of years later the competition might have surpassed it. And if the successor doesn't look just as good compared to the competition, it doesn't deserve the same level of award.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
RomanP

DP, please award a one-time double gold on this camera so Malboni can feel secure about his Fuji purchase.

3 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

I agree with DP too. However it would be useful if scores were adjusted with time, so for example, we could see a direct point score comparison between the x100s and the x100t, or the rx100ii / rx100iii, or the xpro1 and the xt1...Even a very loose formula like deduct IRO 5% for each year that passes...

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

Also...The RX100iii is in the same category, and very recent, so we assume the scores are both current and are as relative as can be. The Sony achieved 82%, 1% higher than the Fuji. Are we to assume then the Sony is better overall?

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel

I should get a gold for reading posts like this with a straight face...

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson

Guys - it is not possible. You cannot have a scoring system where scores gets higher and higher with time. Those in year 2100 have totally lost the references to 2015 technology.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

indeed...but it's possible for things to be adjusted. TBH though, I don't care about numbers. If it works and takes photos, it's ok.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson

@Graig - It is actually adjusting that DPR do. An 85% today is a better camera than 85% yesterday. That is called adjusting.

0 upvotes
jeffinchiangmai1

Sometimes I get out my old cameras and play around. Reading the review of the Minolta Dimage 7i from 2002 this camera came Highly Recommend by DP. At the time, I read the review over and over and fell in love with this camera. I paid far over the odds to get one in Thailand even spending a day travelling to pick it up.
Now though it's a piece of junk and I can't imagine why I liked it. Maybe DP had something to do with it.
In 13 years time, I expect we maybe thinking the same about today's purchases and reviews. It's all dynamic and relative.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ThePhilips

Con:
"16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"

And here I thought that DPR was over the MP race.

4 upvotes
Richard Butler

The latest 24MP sensor from Sony is almost identical to the performance of their 16MP at pixel level (which means its better at a whole-image level). At which point, why wouldn't you want more detail, given how cheap and available storage is becoming?

14 upvotes
AlexisH

Just scroll down 8 comments below so we don't have to repeat commentary here again.

0 upvotes
Ocolon

Pros and cons can be a subjective thing.

For someone who never prints extremely huge and doesn't crop heavily, 16MP aren't a disadvantage. It can even be an advantage due to faster processing and less storage needed (while storage may become cheaper and cheaper, cheap and reliable *long term storage* is still a problem). For someone who crops heavily and prints huge, 16MP are a disadvantage. Therefore it's justifiable to include it as a con, but it isn't necessary to include it either. You could also include the fixed lens as a con, because some people clearly prefer zooms and this camera is really bad at it. But it's not necessary to include it as a con, because it isn't a con for people enjoying a fixed 35mm equiv.

Another example would be the external charger: No, an included external charger isn't an advantage for someone who already has an external charger for that battery type. It's rather a disadvantage for them, because it makes the whole package more expensive.

2 upvotes
ThePhilips

And what I'm supposed to do with all the details? Except boasting on the tech forums? (A sincere question.)

The details help not in the slightest with, for example, the composition. Or the lighting/colors of the scene. Both of which have much much more profound effect on the viewer.

Details?.. I could have tried to say something witty, but I'm bad at it. Thus I would give a simple counterexample: rare smartphone shot has 5MP worth of details.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson

@ThePhilips - this is a camera review. You can read the text and see what is written about the camera and see if you seem to like what you read. Then it might be a good camera for you. And so may lots of other cameras, with higher and lower resolution. But at the and of the day DPR gives a score and an award. Then having more pixels, and not worse image quality, is an advantage and gives more scoring.

0 upvotes
Stephen Scharf

@Barney:

"Gold/Silver awards are not intrinsically tied to the scoring. This has been explained many many many many many many many many times ..."

With all due respect, the reason that your rating system has to be explained that so many time is that whatever "thought process" is used to determine "Gold" vs. "Silver" for cameras that score the same numeric rating simply doesn't make sense to the vast majority of your readers. A suggestion from a "kaizen" perspective is: rather than continuing to defend a rating system no one understands, revise the rating system in a *standardized* way with clear operational definitions so that everyone can understand how "Gold" and/or "Silver" are awarded.

On another note, I own and use an X100T daily, and, IMO, it is a *much* better camera than the X100 or X100S. So giving an improved camera a lower rating that the preceding model got makes virtually no sense to me either.

0 upvotes
Daniel Lauring

I really liked my X100s. It introduced me to the idea of living with a single focal length which I hadn't done since I bought my first film SLR a hundred years ago. The controls are fantastic.

Then the RX1 came along and once I picked up a used one of those it was difficult to go back. The RX1's lens is a good step up from the lens on the X100s and the sensor is in another league as well. I did not find the RX1 to focus any slower than the X100s, maybe the X100t has an advantage.

That, combined with the fragility of the X100s made me glad I sold it before I splashed water on it. It really is sealed very poorly.

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/4841-what-happens-to-x100-when-it-hits-the-dirt/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Cipher

Is it me or is the X100T a smidge sharper than the X100S? Could this be that maybe a different version of software (e.g. Lightroom) was used to process the X100T files than the X100S?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

They were processed using the same version of Adobe Camera Raw (we shot the X100S specifically so that it could be included in this review).

There's a change it's sample variation between the two cameras or a difference in focus beyond the degree to which we can control it. Comparing the images side-by-side, I'd conclude that any differences are within the realms of experimental error.

2 upvotes
oscarvdvelde

Adobe's X-trans demoisaicing still isn't the best. Try RawTherapee 4.2.1 (which is based on dcraw) which is even better than Fuji's own Raw File Converter 2 / Silkypix.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
captura

Maybe the X100S and T should compared to their APS-C rivals, the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix 'A.'

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

Yes and no. In scoring terms they are. But everyone I know who shoots with a GR (or GRD) would never contemplate buying a 35mm equiv camera, while nobody I know with an X100 series considered a 28mm equiv. camera.

Although the principle: large sensor, small(ish) camera with prime lens is similar, the practicalities of the two are rather different.

I specifically called-out the GR as a (for many people) better option than the X100+wide-angle converter, but without accessories, I'd argue each camera is a poor substitute for the other.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ZoranHR

I have both,GR and X100.
There is not a big difference in focal lenght,but they are quite different cameras.

X100 produces very nice pictures with more pleasent colors, better manual focusing, f 2.0, a viewfiner. By today's standards,poor autofocusing, snail-speed operation and after some time with it-impression of not so good build quality. I wouldn't bring it everywhere. For noise and DR I don't care.

Ricoh GR, control of basic photographic parameters even more easy than on Fuji (I know it don't look like that). Sharp lens. Quick focus (not quickiest,but modern). Very nice photo quality,more neutral colors. Very good build quality. Portable. More reliable,especially on cold weather. For noise and DR I also don't care,ask someone else.

That's based on my experience.

3 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

yes, I have the x100t and GR and use each for very different things. I don't think a 'best' can be called. A better comparison perhaps is the XT1+23mm to the x100t. The GR really has no competition, except perhaps that Nikon, which is no competeion.

1 upvote
captura

I have the Coolpix 'A.' Better metal build quality, equal image quality to GR but with slight vignetting wide open, and excellent JPEG performance (which the GR doesn't have.)
Fewer features than GR.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

the handling of the GR is better, and the UI infinity better, and I think the noise pattern of the GR is also better...Biased, I'm just not keen on the Nikon...and that grip!

1 upvote
captura

I like to shoot JPEGS with compact cameras, so the GR would be useless for me.

1 upvote
Craig Atkinson

unless using one of the filter settings...which are actually quite good. The Fujis jpegs are better though.

0 upvotes
captura

And the Coolpix 'A' jpegs are better still.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

captura: you may find opinions differ on your last point.

2 upvotes
captura

Coolpix 'A' JPEGS being better than the Ricoh GR's. I thought that was implied.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

Ah, I took is as a response to 'The Fuji jpegs are better,' implying the Nikon's were better even than that.

It's not an argument I expected anyone to make, but I'll confess I've been somewhat blind-sided by demands for flip-out screens and IS, which would be a long was down the list for me, underneath faster AF and a newer (perhaps Bayer) sensor.

0 upvotes
captura

We were having a side-discussion of Ricoh GR vs Coolpix 'A,' Richard. Sorry we hijacked the thread.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

Hijack away!

1 upvote
sandy b

Richard, pull up the D7000 (same sensor) and compare it to the Fuji in the review. In jpg, the Fuji appears a bit cleaner and sharper. Apply the same NR and sharpening to the Nikon A and they would be very close, this can be seen comparing the raw files where the Nikon pulls ahead in noise and sharpness . Now feature wise, the Fuji is way ahead, some would also like 35 over 28. But for the $329 price that you can get the A for today, its a sweet camera. Superb lens and sensor, not bad battery, full manual capability and 4 fps in an actually pocketable camera. And solid magnesium build. Shame Nikon did not price it competitively at introduction. It is still one of the best actual pocket cameras you can buy.

1 upvote
MiguelFanclub

I mean, ricoh is point and shoot, no manual focus at all and just forget about geting AF at night (i always take the sony rx100 eich is way better than the ricoh for that). Its just a good daylight camera for vacation and to make street photos without caring about composition. Stop comparing it to the Fuji, is a totally different thing. Ricoh G

0 upvotes
bgbs

I have X100s. It's a fine camera that does a lot of things well. Unless you can live without a zoom lens, this camera may not be for you.

0 upvotes
photosen

Interesting camera, useful review.

0 upvotes
mgatov

How is this better than the older Sony RX-1?

1 upvote
Richard Butler

Other than it focusing faster, having a really clever viewfinder, being smaller, offering better battery life, having Wi-Fi and nicer JPEGs, and being cheaper (despite the RX1 being two and a half years old and sold at what looks like end-of-life pricing), not much.

26 upvotes
brendon1000

^^ Correct on all counts Richard except for the comment on size. :)

http://camerasize.com/compare/#468,566

2 upvotes
Richard Butler

You're right. Shallower would have been more accurate.

1 upvote
captura

Surely you must give some credit to what should be superior imaging attainable from the RX1's full-frame sensor and excellent lens, Richard?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler

Captura - absolutely. I gave the RX1 a Gold award for precisely that reason. Its lens and image quality are better than the X100T's, but the question I answered was 'how is this better than the older Sony RX-1?'

8 upvotes
Bhima78

The RX1 is over double the price of the Fuji. There is really nothing to compare except that they are both fixed lens cameras with prime lenses.

0 upvotes
dynaxx

Just look at the studio scene comparison tool Raws and you will see that comparing these two cameras is like chalk and cheese. The lens and sensor in the Sony are top class but I can see how Fujifilm have tried to copy some of the RX1(R)'s features with the latest "T" X100 - unlike Canon they have learned much from Sony !

1 upvote
mgatov

I viewed the Fuji vs. the Sony because they are both 35mm small fixed lens cameras. The image quality of the sony blows the fuji away. The fact that the Sony is older is actually a testament to the quality of the design and not a positive for the Fuji. I don't see the JPEGs of the Fuji as being nicer. I've never run out of battery power during a day of shooting with the sony. WIFI with massive gigabytes of data is plain silly compared to just downloading off of the SD card. The add on view screen on the sony works perfectly for me. Since ultimately it is image quality that counts... I can't see where the Fuji is superior. If I need fast focusing, there are other cameras that out perform either of these by miles.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
captura

I believe the Fuji X100T is not a 35mm equivalent camera; it has an APS-C sensor.

0 upvotes
nerd2

Rx1 has vastly better sensor and lens and smaller too. Only caveat is the extremely high price.

0 upvotes
historianx

I just hope they upgraded the OEM charger, 3 of which failed and I had to replace under warranty on my S, before I gave up and bought a Watson 2 battery charger with interchangeable plates.

0 upvotes
AlexisH

"16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"

This is beginning to be tiresome. We've been subject to megapixel wars for years and now that companies are finally focusing on developing interesting products (like this X100T), do we really need to prod them to get back to cramming megapixels on sensors?

Guess what: if I have the option of buying a 10MP camera or a 40MP one, I'll buy the 10MP one, all other things being equal. The only thing that would make me buy the 40MP one is if it could generate 10-20MP RAW files besides 40MP ones. Canon does this, but they're the only ones AFAIK.

12 upvotes
Richard Butler

The latest 24MP sensor from Sony is almost identical to the performance of their 16MP at pixel level (which means its better at a whole-image level). At which point, why wouldn't you want more detail, given how cheap and available storage is becoming?

18 upvotes
Mike FL

I like low MP camera b/c low-light IQ.

As a matter of fact that all higher end P&S has lower MP than its low-end P&S; such as LX100 has 12MP so does Canon G1X-2 even G1X-2's sensor is larger than M43.

For sub-frame camera, low MP is the only way for useable higher ISO even in the Smartphone world, No other phone can beat two years old HTC-ONE's 4MP sensor in low-light IQ for example.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
historianx

That's why I opted for a D750 Nikon over the D810. 24MP on FF gives me much better high ISO IQ than 36MP

1 upvote
tkbslc

"more detail" is arguable. Where will I see this detail other than 100% crops? I guess if I print 40x60" and use a magnifying glass.

I didn't see any major difference in the ability to enjoy my photos or print normally when I went from 8 to 10 to 18MP. I shot my 18MP camera at 10MP mRAW just because I didn't see any benefit to the higher res images.

Primary storage is quite cheap, but many of us keep several copies for backup as well as RAW + JPEGs. That extra 10MB of file size can quickly turn into 100MB x tens of thousands of images. And then I have to transfer them over 5Mbit upload to my cloud provider.

7 upvotes
J A C S

@historian: "24MP on FF gives me much better high ISO IQ than 36MP"

You should check the A7/A7II against the A7R high ISO performance.

0 upvotes
agnost

From my perspective, a larger sensor means a bigger, heavier kit that discourages spontaneity. And the larger files are not just about cheap storage; they also require increased computer processing power, which is less affordable. Also, I'm not going to see a difference between 16 and 24 megapixels unless I print very, very large. Finally, getting a camera with a larger sensor so you can crop diminishes photography as an art and a craft. Post processing just isn't as gratifying as achieving a good capture. My opinions...

3 upvotes
AlexisH

"At which point, why wouldn't you want more detail, given how cheap and available storage is becoming?"

Because I wouldn't necessarily get more detail. I would just need a bunch more things:

- sharper lenses to exploit that extra resolution
- cards that can write data faster and have higher capacity
- better image stabilization, or I would need to start using a tripod
- I would have to pay more for the camera to get the same burst mode performance with a larger resolution sensor
- I would have to spend more time processing larger RAW files

And for what? I moved between 8MP and 24MP without any significant difference for my photography. If I really, really need resolution for a given scenario, I can go and rent a high resolution camera for a weekend or for a vacation. Why would I want my everyday camera to have more resolution than I need and more than I might even be able to exploit handheld?

3 upvotes
Androole

@ Mike FL

It seems the phone work actually proves the opposite. The best performing camera in low light - and by a long shot - is the Lumia 1020, with 41MP. Granted, it has a much larger 2/3" sensor, but that's still tiny compared to M4/3 or APS-C.

The A6000 or D5500 have equivalent low-light performance to any Fuji when viewed at the same scale (and, I guess, when you pile on equivalent noise-reduction), but they have noticeably better detail in good light. Higher MP is almost always a win-win once you get to 1" sensors and larger...

0 upvotes
Androole

@ Agnost "Finally, getting a camera with a larger sensor so you can crop diminishes photography as an art and a craft."

Your opinion overall makes you sound old-school, except that this is basically exactly the opposite view that many film-wielding pros and photojournalists had. Many used 35mm lenses because it gave them the ability to capture wide and crop close.

"Getting it right in camera" is a relatively modern idea, ironically borne out of low-resolution and low-performance digital sensors...

0 upvotes
agnost

Actually, I am old-school. The "get-a-good-capture" approach comes from my studio and landscape photography background. I understand everyone has a different approach -- and certainly different opinions -- but this is mine. Thanks for your observation.

0 upvotes
Mike FL

Androole;

For your "Higher MP is almost always a win-win once you get to 1" sensors and larger", you may change your mind after you looking the LAB TESTS in high ISO, A7s is 12MP, D4s is 16MP, and D810 is 36MP. Do you see the difference in terms of NOISE?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7s&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_3=nikon_d4s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.17143096494367804&y=0.5551041947551081

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
J A C S

LOL! Now, include the A7 in the comparison and compare it to the A7R, for example.

1 upvote
Mike FL

A7 and A7-2 sensor are dated in case you do not know.

0 upvotes
J A C S

The A7II is the newest camera among the ones you and I mentioned, in case you did not know.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike FL

Regarding to your "The A7II is the newest camera", but we are talking about sensor inside.

Was it not?

Again In case you do not know. ask DPR or go to A7-2's review's discussion sector.

0 upvotes
Androole

Has anyone actually shot a keeper photo at ISO 51200? Or even tried to? Except as a test shot?

Yes, I appreciate that an A7s or a D4s will start to look better than a 36MP A7r once the ISOs start to climb past ISO 8000 or so. But that currently constitutes approximately 0% of my shooting, and that probably holds true for the majority of people even on this heavily gear-oriented site.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
J A C S

How do I (or you) know? It is what Sony decided to put in its latest FF camera.

BTW, the A7 and the A7R were launched at the same time. The A7R sensor beats the A7 in every possible metric, noise included.

0 upvotes
AlexisH

The image quality advantage of larger resolution sensors is minimal (if it exists at all, because often it does not). It is a feeble argument to ask for higher resolution for that minimal potential improvement.

If you want higher resolution *and* same image quality at a proportionately larger print size (i.e compare "screen" results on dxomark, not "print" results), then you should just move on to the next higher format in line.

That is what the "old school" approach was. You wanted higher resolution, you would shoot medium format or large format, not 35mm. People basically lived with the same resolution for decades without whining about the resolution of 35mm film not matching that of MF. But they were slightly more knowledgeable back then because not everyone had a camera and an opinion about how it should work.

2 upvotes
J A C S

Old schoolers never shot ISO 25 and ISO 40 film?

0 upvotes
Androole

Alexis - the exact opposite was true with film. When the film manufacturers produced a new, more advanced film stock, it was possible for all your cameras to get a "sensor upgrade" even with the same format. Yes, it wouldn't be the same as the difference between 135 and MF. But depending on the film, it could be the difference between an A7 and an A7r...

0 upvotes
SmilerGrogan

The problem with higher MP cameras is not that they require more storage, but that they steal time from the photographer because computers have finite processing speed.

If I have to process 1,000 RAW files in Lightroom, it takes many fewer minutes to process 16mb photos than 36 or 50 mb photos. Same thing with processing individual RAWs... Yes, I could spend $4,000 on a MacPro, but a lot of times I'm working on my laptop in some godawful remote location that barely has electricity.

That's why higher megapixels are not worth it to me. They steal my time which is the only thing I can't get back.

0 upvotes
ChrisH37

I agree, and 'storage being so cheap' is not the only consideration many of us need to make, moving those files around often requires use of the internet, and many, many people around the world are still stuck with painfully slow internet connections.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 477
12