XE1 or not?

[woodworth]

I'm thinking of getting an XE1 to replace my NEX7 mainly due to the range of Fuji lenses available compared to the Sony ones.

In future there may well be suitable Sony lenses but as I write there is no Sony 14mm and the 30 macro is not as attractive as the Fuji 60mm macro in my opinion. The ideal lens for me would be around 90mm but as yet neither Fuji or Sony make one.

I particularly like the retro/well built look of the XE1/XE2 and the various lenses.

Has anyone, particularly those who have experience of both Sony and Fuji any opinions they would like to offer? Any particular advantages (to either camera system) that isn't evident from the specifications?

I tend to only use prime lenses and I always shoot raw. I like low light work; theater/concert, candid, etc.

 

[phips243]

I own both the X-E1 and the X100 and I just can say, I love both of em. Especially for their exceptional low light capabilities, which definitely are among the best the "APS-C league" has to offer. The lenses are superb as well. I as well love both cameras' color rendition (and the film simulation modes).
Oh and I love the retro style and the operating concept coming with it. The cameras are fun to shoot and they helped me (and many others, as I read) to rediscover the joy in photography (in that respect I love the X100 even more than the X-E1). Even though I prefer to shoot RAW, as you do, I'm regularly amazed by the Fujis' almost incredible out-of-camera JPG quality (that Fuji has been famous for ever since).

And since you're used to the Nex 7 EVF: The X-E1's is definitely on par (actually Fuji uses that same EVF from Sony, if I'm not utterly mistaken...)

However: If I decided to go for the Fuji X system now, I would prefer the X-E2, since it keeps all the things the X-E1 did well already and is a vast improvement in the areas the X-E1 didn't shine as bright. Or in other words: The X-E2 is the perfect X-E1...

 

[GrahamWelland]

I have the X-E1, a couple of X-Pro1's (visible & IR) and an X-E2 and I would definitely recommend going for the X-E2 if you can afford it. There are a lot of improvements in the usability of the camera and it has grown on me as my favourite X camera now. The feel of the camera is almost as nimble as the X100/X100s bodies that I had.

 

[Paul2660]

Graham:

Quick question, have you worked much with the manual focus peaking on the X-E2? I have had the X-E1 for about 6 months and just love it, it's a perfect companion to my Phase Back as I can often get shots with it that just don't want to spend the time setting up the Phase.

I quickly fell in love the output (raw) after working with PhotoNinja, (hate the name love the output) and just never had any problems with AF or manual on the X-E1.

Based on some of the improvements promised on the 2, I went ahead and purchased one. The 1st unit had a terrible AF issue and I returned that. The 2nd one the AF is more reliable (however I still have issues with it that I didn't have with the 1) but the manual focus peaking on the 2 is IMO terrible.

You don't get any real feel for where things are as the display peaks early and there is a huge amount of room for focus. I also noticed over the weekend that with the 18-55 (with latest firmware) that the distance scale on my 2 is off way off. When I am at say 30 feet, the distance scale is between 7 to 10. I can go back to AF hit the target and be in foucs, then switch back to MF, with no change and the distance scale will still be at the 7 to 10 foot range. If you focus to 30 feet manually which is where I should be the image is past infinity. With the X-E1, I am always in line with the distance meter. The peaking is weaker but makes more sense for me.

I have called Fuji, and they were not much help as I feel that feel it's pretty much a AF camera.

For now I am torn on keeping it, got to figure it out tomorrow. I guess I am leaning towards returning it right now as I can get a much higher rate of MF success with the 1. I had hoped for a more out of the new LCD but I really don't see much difference. Thought a little about sending back the 1 and getting the X 1 pro as a back up. But Fuji is bound to announce a newer pro2 soon.

At least I don't have any shutter vibration issues

Paul

 

[GrahamWelland]

Hmm - I hadn't noticed that issue. I will take a look as I normally do everything visually with focus peak or touch AF-On and adjust.

 

[Paul2660]

It's a strange issue for me as I was able to pretty much always nail focus manually with the X-E1. The only way I can describe the X-E2 is that the peaking "peaks" long before you are in the best focus. And as you turn the focus ring to where the peaking "maxes" out you tend to past infinity.

This is all with the 18-55 lens. I have not tried any others yet.

Paul

 

[Dale Allyn]

Quick question, have you worked much with the manual focus peaking on the X-E2?

Hi Paul,

I have an X-E2 and use manual focus with peaking. I'm not finding any problems with accuracy, however I have not tried it with the Fuji 18-55 lens. I have only used it with the Canon 135mm f/2.0 L (excellent results) and Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4, plus a couple other Canon lenses. All have been accurate.

 

[Dale Allyn]

I'm thinking of getting an XE1 to replace my NEX7 mainly due to the range of Fuji lenses available compared to the Sony ones.

snip...

Has anyone, particularly those who have experience of both Sony and Fuji any opinions they would like to offer? Any particular advantages (to either camera system) that isn't evident from the specifications?

I tend to only use prime lenses and I always shoot raw. I like low light work; theater/concert, candid, etc.

Hi. I can't offer any comparison for you as you have described, but as others here have said, if you're comfortable with the higher price of the X-E2 over the X-E1 there are worthwhile features/updates in the new version. The X-E1 represents a great value now IMO, but frankly I feel the same way about the X-E2 and the updates were important to me.

 

[ptomsu]

With all my Fuji X system experience and owning now a XE2 for several weeks, I would never go back to a XE1!

XE2 is just the PERFECT APSC CAMERA today! And much better IQ than any of the recent m43 cameras too!

 

[woodworth]

Thanks everyone for your enthusiastic comments. So far no-one saying "no-don't do it!", that said, I didn't expect that response.

phips243's comment that the XE1's "their exceptional low light capabilities..." is encouraging as that's where the NEX7 falls down a bit.

I'm debating whether to go for the XE2 or not but what holds me back slightly is that I can probably get two used XE1's for the price of an XE2 and I am wondering if the XE2 is a vast improvement on the XE1 or just a modest one? What are the improvements you have noticed?

Also does anyone know if there is an Af adapter for EOS lenses as I'd quite like to use the Canon 100/2 with a XE1 (or XE2)?

Thanks again for all your replies!

 

[Rayto]

I used a NEX7/CZ24 for 3 weeks prior to my purchase of an XE1. Some of my experience:

The deal killer for me was I wear eyeglasses and the NEX evf is eyeglass unfriendly. Not enough relief.

The NEX is basically a raw only camera. The jpeg files are blah and need work. So I shot raw only. In contrast, the XE1 puts out superb jpeg's with sufficient headroom for decent editing. I'd give the nod to the Fuji raw files as well. I viewed the NEX files as good digital files. The Fuji output is closer to analog, more delicate micro contrast and an airier more dimensional look.

At the time I used the 7, the lens line was pretty unimpressive. Decent lenses were expensive and always back ordered. No idea what the situation is like today.

I felt the 7 had better build quality than the XE1. The XE1 is good to very good but lacks the tank like build quality of the Sony. Better grip and better handling with the 7. Either menu interface is fine with me. Physical controls on the XE1 can pretty much be duplicated on the 7. Speed of operation and AF speed is comparable.

In hindsight, I'm believe I made the right decision. I now have the 14, 18, 35 and 18-55. They are all excellent in their own ways and well worth the money. The IQ is superb (using Aperture but there's no shortage of excellent converters out there). Its a camera I will likely have for quite a while.

 

[Paul2660]

No doubt one of the real weakness I found with the Sony Nex setup was the overall quality of the Sony E mount glass. Especially with the Nex-7. Still have mine since it's worth more to keep than try to sell.

The optics that Fuji was come out with have been very good.

I wish that Fuji had a few more lenses with OS, like the 18-55 or the 55-200. One I would love to see is the 60mm macro with OS.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Dale Allyn]

I wish that Fuji had a few more lenses with OS, like the 18-55 or the 55-200. One I would love to see is the 60mm macro with OS.

Paul Caldwell

I agree, Paul. The 60mm macro with OIS would be helpful.

I also wish that Fuji were showing a fast 90mm prime lens, such as 90mm f/2.x, in the roadmap. They're covering the long end with zooms, and quite slow aperture ranges at that.

 

[woodworth]

I .. wish that Fuji were showing a fast 90mm prime lens, such as 90mm f/2.x...

I completely agree, particularly if with OIS.

Well, I'm about get my XE1 (or 2 if I can get one cheaply enough) and am thinking about which "standard lens" to get. I prefer primes on the whole and first I considered the 27mm - which would be quite a good focal length for me but felt that I needed a wider aperture than 2.8., so it comes down to the 23mm and 35mm. I'm torn between these two lenses. Do any of you have any experience of using these lenses, especially wide open? I'm leaning towards the 23mm but it is still quite expensive ... hmmm!

 

[woodworth]

I've been considering the Panny GX7, the Fuji XE-1 (or 2) and the OMD-EM1 whilst going on this particular journey. The XE-1 is ahead for me and I fully intend getting one, but ... just be sure, I'm revisiting my choice - one last time!

I have no interest in video whatsoever and I tend to take considered (slow) pictures like available light/candid work and do not do any form of action photography.

Image quality has to be the number one consideration and in that respect all three are probably good enough with their respective strengths and weaknesses ironed out by shooting RAW (my usual practice).

One negative factor for the GX7 and EM1 is the smaller sensor. From my observations from processing RAW images from each camera, they are about 2 stops more grainy (iso 1600 on the XE1 being as grainy as iso 400 on the mft sensors (imo!)), that said I still got some very acceptable results at iso 1600 from the GX7. Without angrily jumping to the defense of your particular camera (please), do you have any comments that might reassure me on this? Grain is a bit of a killer for me.

I know that AF speed with the XE-1 isn't on a par with the GX7/EM1 but I think it is similar to the NEX7, so it's not really an issue for me.

When processing the RAW image files from the XE-1, the EM1 and GX7 I noticed that the XE-1 needed less sharpening and when sharpened to the same amount the XE-1 files looked better than the GX7/EM1 versions which looked a little over-sharpened in comparison. I may well have been working on a duff bunch of RAW files (not taken by me incidentally), who knows? My question is, compared to using larger sensors (which many of you will have in the form of APSC cameras), do you feel the small sensor images look as good when printed?

Observing the various sample files available (raw & jpg), one particular photographer (photographyblog.com) seemed to have a definite camera shake issue when shooting with the XE1/2 when compared to the images he took with the GX7/EM1. I know that the XE-1/2 doesnt have in body IS but neither does my (former) NEX7 and that wasn't a particular issue for me. Has anyone noticed that shake is an issue when using this camera?

Now I'm not trying to start a punch-up here! Just asking for any pertinent observations from those who have had use of both APSC and MFT sensors and in particular any users of the XE-1 who have rejected the MFT to find out why.

 

[benroy]

I think you are right on all counts...I'm an old guy who uses the XE-1 for static objects...AF is not a major concern for me either...I don't shoot sports or other action related activities...I like the handling, have no problems with EVF focusing, and the lenses are first rate...especially the 14mm and the 35...that 's my two cents worth...except choice of words: not "slow" but contemplative photographing.

I agree with your findings on the MFT cameras...shadow detail is quite a bit noisier than the Fuji's...but the lenses are terrific, so I hold on to the OMD and wait for sunny opportunities.
Roy Benson

 

[woodworth]

I think you are right on all counts...I'm an old guy who uses the XE-1 for static objects...AF is not a major concern for me either...I don't shoot sports or other action related activities...I like the handling, have no problems with EVF focusing, and the lenses are first rate...especially the 14mm and the 35...that 's my two cents worth...except choice of words: not "slow" but contemplative photographing.

I agree with your findings on the MFT cameras...shadow detail is quite a bit noisier than the Fuji's...but the lenses are terrific, so I hold on to the OMD and wait for sunny opportunities.
Roy Benson

Curiously, I have just ordered a 35mm and 14mm or my (soon to have) Fuji XE-1, so I shall enjoy some contemplative photography next week.

I agree with you about the MFT lenses - lots of very tempting lenses, especially the Olympus 75mm (a gap at present in the Fuji line up!). I may yet get a MFT just to use the Olympus lenses but I doubt Her(r) financial Director will sanction such a purchase at present as she wants a new dishwasher!

I decided on an XE-1 as, so far as I can see, the image quality is very nearly identical and the other features aren't sufficiently important to me to spend the extra money. I think I'll wait for an XE-3 (probably next year ...?) as it will then probably be a greater improvement on the XE-1.

Thanks everyone who has given me the benefit of their advice - much appreciated!

 

[kit laughlin]

I have bought an X-E1 and the lens you passed on (the 27/2.8). I already have two GX-7 bodies and a slew of µ4/3rd's lenses (not to mention M-mount CV ones too); and all this after looking at how the '1 performs following the recent firmware upgrades. As video is already covered, I cannot see that the X-E2 has any major improvements over the earlier '1, for my needs. I will keep in touch with this thread.

 

[woodworth]

Kit, glad you're making the plunge again! I have to say that the 27mm is very tempting as a walk around lens. I may well get one when funds permit. The size and focal length are great and if it had been an f2, I think that would have tipped the balance for me.

As it is I'd like the option of 1.4 and don't mind a little bulk, so I'm pretty much decided.

 

[kit laughlin]

Kevin, I completely understand re. the desirability of ƒ2 over 2.8, but there are a number of other factors:

these cameras perform very very well at the higher ISOs

ƒ2 legs would be quite a bit bigger and longer; the major attraction of the current 27 is that the camera and lens have such a compact profile, yet is not too small

and my intended use—graffito, street scenes, and groups, where very likely I will be stopped down anyway.

I will be getting the 56/1.2 and the 14/2.8, but before I do, I want to see how my copy of the CV 12/5.6 does, cropped square. On the Ricoh M module it was spectacular. Now, if there are all sorts of corner smearing or colour casts, square format might just do the trick, and then I won't need the 14. Zone focussing the 12 is actually practical, if stopped to ƒ8 or 11.

I am actually *excited* to be getting another X-E1; the pancake and focus peaking (both of which happened after I sold my first one) are all I wanted when I did own it.