Fujifilm X70 Review

My guess is that lens design is what makes the GR sharper than the X70 wide open at F2.8. By around F5.6 the difference in sharpness is indiscernible. Since the camera is not weather sealed and to retain its compactness, Fuji may what opted for the X70 lens design for the reason you stated. Overall, the X70 have a lot going for it against the GR.

Never had a problem with sensor dust on my GR - almost two years and counting.. Those who have, have either not used a case for carrying it around between use or stuck in their pocket where lint is a real problem for any camera.

@fossilized light
I am not having a particular dig at Ricoh but many people seem to have problems and I really do not know. My Panasonic TZ40 which I always bag had a really big black sensor blob but a cheap camera so a mighty thwack on the side sorted it out on a kill or cure basis. You cannot just put a TZ40 in your pocket as the lens protection blades are so delicate they can easily turn in to built in lens scratchers.
These £600+ compacts are a different matter. I do not think Pansonic thought about this when they brought out the LX100 which rightly or wrongly has a bit of a dust magnet reputation, nor have the other manufacturers.
Manufacturers need to be seen to sort out perceived problems whether they are fact or not. That is a harsh reality of the market.

It's not an unreasonable point, but I think the proof lies in a quantity analysis. How many X70 shots will suffer from edge softness? 100%. How GR shots will suffer dust issues? >1%?

I'm sure you can do the math

@electrophoto.
Fujifanboys live in their own world. They build up themselfes in the forums. It's really that sad. And I use Fuji since 20 years... back from the old analog days (Fuji GX680). The mirrorless crowd is goin' nuts on themselves. Dunno why.

@vscd
fully agree, I don't understand it either...

I have an OM-D E-M1 and some nice olympus lenses for it... but I know exactly WHY I still shoot most of my commercial (and non commercial work) with my FF gear... and it's not simply the greater control over DOF with a fast lens... no.
I like a good EVF... but I still prefer - given a choice - a 100% OVF... low light AF whilst good on the OM-D, is not in the same league YET as any of the FF DSLRS I've used.
Resolution, pixel pitch & co... dynamic range... high ISO...

i don't think that the most important prerequisite is a VF... but it certainly helps in many situations.
I've got cameras with and without a VF and really, in 85% of the situations I prefer to use the VF... the other 15% make up odd angles...

No need to get all hissy, dear chap.

The purpose of a review is to show you the camera and describe/criticise its properties. This one doesn't, that's all.

I own it & have lots of experience with Fuji cameras (x100, x100s, XT10) and have owned the GR + have a Canon gear. So from an experienced Fuji user here's my take: the lens is sharp, even at f2.8. I use LR & have not experienced any waxy skin tones from jpeg or raw - Google LR settings for Fuji raws and there are a few good sites that make a huge difference. AF is very fast, not quite DSLR or Olympus, but very useable. It's small - feels like an x100 but smaller. Tilt screen useful for angles a viewfinder won't encourage, and touch AF is great. Tilt screen can be used as a tripod on flat and angled surfaces. Image files are delightful & more than most need - I don't use the crop 35mm & 50mm options because I prefer to crop in post and use the full resolution of the lens & sensor. Face detection mode works in A, P, & Manual and is accurate & useful. Suggest you try it out at a store. Either the x70 or GRII are great choices amongst others. So many great options :-)

I also own it. Have it for like a month. I enjoy it very much. The lens is very sharp and I don't know how they got such a smudged image in the review. My images look nothing like that. I use silkypix. Raws are about 30 MB and store plenty of detail.

Physical interface in wonderful. Ergonomics are very good and the camera is quite pocketable. I carried it in my coat pocket over long weekend and it felt very comfortable. The camera is very quick. if you like set manual focus to 5m and f/8 to f/8 and be there kinda style you never wait for the camera, you just fire away without the camera skipping a beat (provided your card can handle it).

The menus can be little messy but the Quick menu under Q button brings 16 customizable settings plus you have 8 customizable buttons so most of the times you don't need to go to the menu at all.

Video quality is pretty good as well. It's not razorsharp 4k but pretty decent 1080p. Certainly much better than my canon EOS M.

@candice21, if you're thinking about it, just recognize the shortcomings and decide if they matter to you. I hope the point has come across in the shooting experience and sample gallery that the X70 is fun and enjoyable to use, and offers a shooting experience that I personally prefer to the GR only because I like using a touch/flip screen for quick focus point placement.

The score is low here because objectively the X70 just doesn't offer any great leap forward over the GR from 2013. Instead it takes almost the exact same specs with an alternative method of use. On top of that the GR is one of the sharpest APS-C compacts we have ever seen.

If that doesn't matter to you, which isn't anything to be ashamed of, then you will be happy with the X70.

Because DPR don't use Silkypix?

Guys, I just bought it today. No regrets. It does exactly what I want it to do.

And for the first time ever, other people are interested in this camera. I guess it's because it doesn't look all that intimidating to non-photog folks.

Friends were enjoying the flip screen and I'm just happy I decided to get it.

Try looking at the images instead of the cameras! The Ricoh GR is one of the finest photographic tools of all time.

I have friends who've shot amazing images with the Ricoh GR, and I have no complaints about its capability. But what I didn't like about it were the controls. They're far from terrible, but doesn't match the kind of user experience I get from my Fuji X30 and Sony a6000. Plus I tend to manual focus a lot, and the Ricoh is horrible in that regard. Otherwise however, it's a very fine camera for street shooting.

One of the best feature of the GR is this - It is the most unexciting looking camera. Therefore it won't attract attention when you do street shooting. You can point it at strangers and they just think it's a point & shoot and mostly likely would accept what you do, never suspecting it has as high quality as other much larger DSLR cameras. They would also think you are just taking snapshots and not serious photos of them.

I am sure the Ricoh is a great camera to use. I just would have never even noticed it if it were not for it being compared in this review. Hearing all the positive comments about it certainly peeks my interest in it.

@theprehistorian, almost every camera these days makes excellent images. I think it is a fair argument if someone sacrifices image quality for a better shooting experience with the equipment. Maybe the GR is great to shoot with, I don't know because they made it so stinking boring I never even considered it. I might now.

'Horrible' is going a bit far, they're just neutral. Shoot RAW and have whatever colours you like!

@photo perzon stop spamming your misguided rubbish everywhere.

The sensor in the X70 is better than the D7000 sensor... by far. And if you require fast AF, the Coolpix A is the worst of the three (by a wide margin) in good light.

And the Ricoh's color isn't the nicest of the three... even in RAW. You can modify colors, but sensors have an inherent look to them.

John - I'm pretty sure the 16mp X-Trans is exactly the same sensor as that in the d7000 but with Fuji's crackpot colour filter.

I'm pretty sure it's not after using both of them and trying to PP both. I'm not arguing, but the Fuji files could be pushed a lot further than the D7000 files. This is just my experience.

marike6, I go by what I see from actually using the cameras and not by what some website says with number score. Have you used them? There is more to photography than sharpness. I wasn't speaking of the X70 in general, but the 16mp X-Trans sensor. Note that I did state that the X70 isn't better... just better at some things. I did not say the Coolpix A was bad...I said its AF is the slowest. I've used the Ricoh GR, the X70, and the Coolpix A. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The D7000 I used was a friends and felt there was less to work with in regards to the latitude of the files than any other CMOS camera of its time. I'm not sure what I did wrong if indeed has 14.9 EV of dynamic range. However, I don't have that issue with any other camera. As far as Fuji messing up files, that's opinion. I happen to like X-Trans files, but perhaps it's because I actually use the cameras, know how to PP the files, and care about photography over pure specs on paper and measure bating.

I've had a D7000, an X100S and currently own an X-Pro1 which I shoot alongside a Ricoh GR and D810. I think you'll find the 16MP sensor in the D7000 is precisely the same Sony made unit as that in the GR and Coolpix A. Performance is thus broadly similar. The sharpest of the three 16mp sensor implementations is the GR, although it can be a bit grainy even at lower ISOs; the D7000 is better in that regard and the Fujis better still. One of the biggest problems with the X-Trans files in post is you can't sharpen them much without bringing out some really horrid artefacts; this is less of a problem if the lens is sharp and you don't need to sharpen much; the 35/1.4 I use on my X-Pro is wonderful. The X100s's 23mm lens is poor and the files look disgusting when sharpened. The weird X-Trans filter does seem to confer some advantage with respect to chroma noise; don't ask me why! So, the X-Trans gives with one hand and takes away with the other!

If you have to ask why you need a proper camera over your smartphone, you're probably not a photography enthusiast and you probably don't need a proper camera. But f2.8 on a large APS-C sensor gives you WAY more DOF control than a teeny tiny smartphone sensor and because of that your images will look MUCH more professional. Not to mention the proper exposure controls and lack of horrible shutter lag you get with a X70 or Ricoh GR type camera.

More dynamic range is an obvious answer. And I'm not talking about insane HDR ability, I just mean not having the blown out skies that accompany many small sensors in many situations.

Digimat, with a current smartphone you would even get better AF than with this "enthusiast" camera. My Samsung GS7E phone focuses as fast as the DSLRs I've had. It also identifies faces in a frame and tracks them faster than I could ever do myself - my Fuji X-E1 would still be hesitating on which BACKGROUND to focus.
I was told here that I should not demand too much from the X-E1 since it's so old it's almost vintage material (well, of course, decent AF was unheard-of in 2012), and that current Fujis focus adequately. Well, if they dare to put broken AF in this very latest model, I am not exactly willing to risk another 1.5kEUR for an X-T2 when it comes out. Or any further lens investment in this system.

The Ricoh GV-1 is the OVF for the Ricoh GR, which is the exact same VF with the same 21/28mm crop lines that Fujifilm has rebranded and offered for the X70.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761037-REG/Ricoh_172780_GV_1_External_Viewfinder.html

Something like that shouldn't cost more than $50.

The VF is obsurdly overpriced. Insultingly so. Even worse than the $100-180 Fuji tries to charge for small bits of milled aluminum, calling them "grips" or "ergonomic kits".

You can buy x mount lenses with AF and OIS for as much as the finder costs. Less if you happen to get it in a kit...

Ridiculous.

X-M1 body €399
X-M1 + 16-50 €499
X-M1 + 16-50 + 50-230mm €599

Awesome lens by the way,
beats any other F3.5-5.6 kit lens on the planet.

And that last part *might* not even be exaggerating.

Stop trolling, wren.

Yup some people (like me) have no need for a viewfinder, even on an enthusiast camera like the X70.

They're handy in bright conditions, or when you need stability.

"They're handy in bright conditions, or when you need stability."

Absolutely, but the notion that a camera without a VF can't be targeted at enthusiasts is absurd. There are serious, skilled photographers who prefer using the LCD screen for composition. It's just a matter of personal preference, not a matter of beginner vs. enthusiast.

Shallow depth of field with a wide lens? Bit naff really.

Pretty damn hard. it wpuld be bigger nd defeat one of the kwy purposes of this model. it would also increase the price unless you like bad lens performance.

The OP suggested a faster lens. Can you not read?

Struggle with what exactly, your cryptic BS? What exactly are you TRYING to say. Only the weak and shallow come on here throwing cryptic insults at others.

ogl, ozturert: Agreed. X70 has the look & feel but that lens doesn't do any favors. X100 similarly in my experience.

Fuji should forget the x-trans, it does not give any real benefit over bayer pattern , just look to any fuji xa1 vs xm1 comparison, bayer sensor gives more detail.

mgl- not true at all. with the right raw convwrter xtrans with no AA sure gives more detail than bayer with AA. And Bayer with No AA sure has more color moire issues than xtrans.

M L G yes i have yet to see anyplace on the net thats has any images in a A B test that say look the X-Trans is better here look..if there is a benefit its massively out weight with all the down sides
I had the XE-2 and in testing against my Canon 100D/SL1 with the same sharp prime on both.. the canon prodused more fine detail in a nicer way....i evan let the fuji community process the fuji raw files in different software although thay did a better job than me thay did not match my edit with the 100D

You can snap away with any camera you like; people concerned with image quality will want to know how a camera performs...

I simply do not see why anyone would choose this over a Ricoh GR.

#theprehistorian: the "retro" looks...

theprehistorian: I accept that and add that there are reviews aplenty that take a different view of the X-70.

If you don't care about technical aspects of a camera's performance just ignore the reviews and buy the prettiest one you can afford. Pretty much any camera today will make a nice enough image provided you don't look too closely. Or use it in difficult conditions.

Those reviews are mostly sponsored by Fuji. These are guys who do other work for fuji, like product shots.

What i meant is this review when it was announced: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2016/01/15/the-fujifilm-x70-review/ There where a few other reviews like this one. Read the lens section. He is sponsored by Fuji. In the beginning before the release there where only Fuji sponsored reviews available. All saying it was the sharpest lens ever. Now it seems that it is not that good. But i quess it is not bad. My advise is to read multiple reviews and combine them to what you think you need to know and buy one. I am not a fanboy. I own a Ricoh GR, but might get a x70 because it has a lot i really like. Keep my Ricoh anyway. For me DPR is one of the reviewers.

Najinsky - those are JPGs. It's the processor that has improved, or in other words, better sharpening at its default setting. But the amount of sharpening that xtrans can handle in Raw has not changed with the new sensor. Though the increase in resolution does help of course.

I am a big fan of Fuji, but i agree with Jeff. Though only for strictly Raw shooters. Users of JPG will appreciate rendering out of camera and the Fuji-charm in practical use of the X70, in addition to a tilty-touch screen for easy focusing.

Nobody will get to see any of those differences at pixel-peeping level when you share your images with people, but will notice the fun you had taking them.

ps. For Raw shooters there are also the built-in calibration profiles to choose from (in ACR and Lightroom) that work quite well.

People who like Fujifilm cameras, like them. People who don't nitpick away at them much akin to the disdain for the m43 sensor.

as for me, it's sharpness of mediocre zoom lens, not fixed one.

Is good photography solely the product of sharpness? I think not. I've seen plenty of extremely sharp images of pure crap. But, if it's important to you, of course, buy the GR or Coolpix A and in the process have less capabilities when the light diminishes.

Don't compare apples with oranges. You try to avoid discussion to another side. Good photo with good sharpness will be better. Good photo with bad sharpness won't be better. As for high ISO - Fujifilm X100 had ISO trick - indicated ISO and real ISO had a big difference. It's hard to say anything about X70 without DXO tests. Anyway, photography needs light. No light - no photo. You can make good noise reduction in RAW converter with GR or Nikon A, but you can't change lens of X70 :)

indicated ISO difference typically reported at 1/3 to 1/2 a stop. It is not apples and oranges unless you choose to see it that way. I don't. You are exaggerating the implications of the reported vs real ISO, but that's okay with me.
On the lens, I'd like to see testing with other X70's as this sharpness issue is simply not something I read elsewhere. Of course, if you live and die with a DPR review, then no need to.

robjons, did you actually read any of the text in this review? The second sentence in the First Paragraph of the review clearly states " ...omits their hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder - or indeed any kind of built-in viewfinder at all."
How much more clarity do you need?

@robjons. well, you would have to read the first paragraph for that piece of information.

Sarcasm aside, i think Batter is right that it's fairly noticeable these images were taken on a tilt screen rather than a viewfinder.

So there it is people, we can stop acting superior about viewfinders. (or touch screens)