Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Not one bit. Since when a camera role and function is solely determined by just one part- the sensor? The handling of an X-E2 and X-M1 is quite different. So is with this camera.Yes and no, I think. They have the following models at 16MP:
Xpro 1
X-E1/2
X100S
X-T1
They all effectively have one sensor in common and that, IMO, is too narrow a spread. They have lots of cameras coming very close in terms of their application and utility. While they may have differences in their manner, in niche/role they are very, very close.... just different flavours. The X-T1 just breaks out a little in terms of presentation and some functions, but in essence is another (IMO better) variation.
I could not agree more!I disagree that one has to go from 16 right up to 36mp to really see a difference. I can see a very significant difference (it is not remotely subtle) between my 12 MP X100 and 22 MP 5D III in fine detail and that's a significantly smaller linear growth ratio than 16 to 36. Then there is tonality and that sense of 'photoreality'.
The only myth here is that additional MP, mated to the right lenses, don't really make much difference. When you are making large prints with fine detail, it makes on heck of a different (with lenses that can do the higher resolving sensor justice).
The same argument abounded with 'there's no point in shooting 645 instead of 35mm... you have to go to 6x7 to see a real difference' and '645 and 6x7 are basically the same quality, so you might as well shoot 645'... 5x4 is so close to 5x7 that why bother with the larger format? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Small differences make a small difference (not 'no real' difference) and big differences make a bigger difference than small differences!
16 MP cameras are capable of great things, but all that was being said by me and other people is that it would be nice to have an option of 'a little more'. I've bought into the Sony A7/A7R system, so it does not matter for me (and I am therefore glad I did, seeing as Fuji is stuck at 16MP), but I'd love to see them stretch things a bit further IQ-wise. There are lot of people out there who want to see this.
As for those who say that DR suffers, well the Sony sensor on the A7R and D800 manage just fine!
I sold off most of my u4/3 kit (kept the GH3 and Panny 2.8 loom lens pair, mostly for video) and have kool-aided up with the A7. This new green flavor Fuji is temping though, mostly due to what appear to be some ideal lenses. The macro is ready to go, as is a very fast portrait.Looks like another great camera.
No, I'll not be drinking the Kool Aid. Between the Olympus E-M1 and my Olympus/Panasonic-Leica lenses for it, and the Sony A7 and my Leica R lenses for it, I'm done. =8^o
G
We're in the same boat although if I did not have my m43 kit built out so much, I would say this would likely be my choice (with a speed booster of course as well ).I'm seriously tempted BUT if I don't want FF what's wrong with my lovely m43 kit, and if I do, well the Fuji ain't it!
This is a conditional decision
Everybody's standards and expectations are different, but IMO Fuji glass is very good (excellent, really). Even the "kit" zoom is pretty nice. The 35mm f/1.4 (52mm FF Equiv) is tack sharp; the 14mm (21mm FF Equiv) is stellar; 56mm f/1.2 (85mm equiv) is looking grand; and so on. For me, the weak spot or hole in the offering is 75-90mm ~f/2 prime, as there's nothing announced in that space yet.I'm really interested in this camera as a travel/street shooter. My question is how good are the Fuji lenses? My only experience with Fuji optics on digital camera is the H lenses for the Hasselblad. Those lenses are very sharp but lack character except for the 100 F/2.2
Also I hear Fuji has excellent colors but rarely any opinion of skin tones.
Going from 12 to 22 MP corresponds to going from 16 to 29 MP.I disagree that one has to go from 16 right up to 36mp to really see a difference. I can see a very significant difference (it is not remotely subtle) between my 12 MP X100 and 22 MP 5D III in fine detail and that's a significantly smaller linear growth ratio than 16 to 36. Then there is tonality and that sense of 'photoreality'.
And how many days should we expect this conditional decision to last? :ROTFL:I'm seriously tempted BUT if I don't want FF what's wrong with my lovely m43 kit, and if I do, well the Fuji ain't it!
This is a conditional decision
I'm probably going a similar route, keeping the GH3 for video and buying Fuji for photography. That means the hassle of having two systems, but it's the best of both worlds. I see the X-T1 as the digital Contax that never was (not counting the N Digital), 10 years after the sad demise of the original, but a Contax with a Fuji sensor, no less. One can use it with the old Zeiss glass and a speed booster or with the new Fuji glass. Both are among the best lenses money can buy. For the time being, I don't see anything resembling photographic Nirvana more than this.I sold off most of my u4/3 kit (kept the GH3 and Panny 2.8 loom lens pair, mostly for video) and have kool-aided up with the A7. This new green flavor Fuji is temping though, mostly due to what appear to be some ideal lenses. The macro is ready to go, as is a very fast portrait.
Or, I could just really go in with both feet and buy an A7r to go along with the A7 :ROTFL: