The new Fuji XT-1

[pics]

<p>I wonder if this will be a replacement for the X-Pro1 or a parallel offering to go along with their rangefinder style cameras. The X-T1 sounds like it has some nice features but I would still like to have the option of an optical viewfinder. The X-T1 seems too similar to all the Olympus, Sony and Samsung designs, but the X-Pro has a uniqueness to it that I admire.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I came very close to actually jumping up and down upon seeing this. I <em>really</em> want one. It's just got that grown-up, functional, German look to it which never dies. I saw the DF the other month and the word which sprung to mind was "Bvlgari"- pretty, but effectively jewellery. I will almost certainly not buy an X-T1 though- I already have three bodies and don't want to start all over again with yet another family of lenses when I am as happy with my GX1 & Leica 25/1.4 and (strongly) considering the 42.5/1.2. Lovely lovely stuff from Fuji. If I manage to sell my Nikon stuff there might be room in my photography corner for this. This body with a really good lens on it will certainly produce better images than my current fave set-up.</p>

<p>p.s. I do think the Nikon Df is more than relevant to this discussion- with droves of dedicated Nikonistas finally realising the company they love has ditched them for a marketting strategy, while several other companies (Fuji, Pentax, Olympus et al) are so obviously bending over backwards to bring out cameras designed for and by enthusiasts, the Df seems to me like the ultimate statement of contempt from Nikon: "Ah, everyone and their wife has told us they want a D400, let's give them <em>this"</em>. I will never again enquire after the D300s replacement. I don't give a stuff what Nikon are doing. They won't be getting another penny from me, not even for a lenscap.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"Ah, everyone and their wife has told us they want a D400, let's give them <em>this"</em></strong><br /> <br /> <strong><em><br /></em></strong>I think that Nikon has realized (probably correctly) that the demand for high end crop sensor DSLR's is probably waning. When the D300 came out, it was a viable option for those wanting a high end body with Nikon's pro-control layout and heavy duty build quality, but couldn't yet justify the high price tag of going full frame. Now full frame has dropped more in price and competes for this market segment. I don't know what a D400 would cost, but it would most likely be in the the same neighborhood as the lower cost full frame cameras like the D-610. I have to assume that most people would opt to go for lower end full frame as opposed to a high end crop body costing nearly as much even if they don't have the same layout and rugged feel of a D300. I am a case in point. I own a D300 and love it, but I would never replace it with another high end crop body if Nikon were to release a D400. I would rather go full frame but for now I am still waiting for Nikon's full-frame cameras with the pro/prosumer build quality and layout (ex: D800) to come down in price.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>p.s. I do think the Nikon Df is more than relevant to this discussion- with droves of dedicated Nikonistas finally realising the company they love has ditched them for a marketting strategy, while several other companies (Fuji, Pentax, Olympus et al) are so obviously bending over backwards to bring out cameras designed for and by enthusiasts, the Df seems to me like the ultimate statement of contempt from Nikon: "Ah, everyone and their wife has told us they want a D400, let's give them <em>this"</em>. I will never again enquire after the D300s replacement. I don't give a stuff what Nikon are doing. They won't be getting another penny from me, not even for a lenscap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't like the Df is fine because it does have a mirror and a rather large one. None of the Fuji, Pentax, Olympus et al you mentioned has a mirror. That's where one either want one or not because of just that. </p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>it would most likely be in the the same neighborhood as the lower cost full frame cameras like the D-610.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the D610 does not have the top of the line AF module and a large buffer, and the crop factor in the DX helps sports shooters with long lenses. </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Doesn't have a mirror? I do not care at all about that and it is obvious many others are also very comforable with EVFs. In fact, I love using my GX1 which has no viewfinder at all....and often don't look at the LCD screen. I have been training myself for some time now not to need to look at my camera and I am quite satisfied at how I am progressing. Having a mirror is not even on my radar.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>I don't see the mirror as having any particular advantage. the mirror-slap is noisy; also EVFs are getting to the point where they are better than OVFs because you get WYSIWYG framing and composition.</p>

 

[shutterbud]

<p>I popped into Sundan today, one of China's leading electronics chains, and was astonished to see what I believe is almost the entire Fuji range now in stock. They have the X100S, XE1 and XE2, The "Pro" and the X-M1, all out for me to have a play with. I was suprised at the lightness of the X100S and the blockiness of the Pro, but am very glad to see them in the most mainstream location you can get. Sales are bound to rocket. Also, they had the Sony A7, which is growing on me, for 11.5K.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I am quite satisfied at how I am progressing. Having a mirror is not even on my radar."</p>

<p>Hmm, I have tried the same technique myself, however, it is "hit and miss" regardless of how much practice.</p>

<p>To my mind it is simple, frame the photo, press the big button and hey! No "hit and miss" involved and it works when it really matters....Nothing to my mind about being shy when taking a photo.</p>

<p>We are photographers, and we take photographs, because that is what we do.</p>

<p>Thanks for the photo in a gear thread; a pleasant experience....I thought it was interesting and of good technical quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>That Fuji looks to me a ugly beast stuff of nightmares.Allen</p>

<p>Really? To me it looks like a nice blend of form and function.Eric.</p>

<p>I'm biased being a long time Nikon user.</p>

<p>Yes, form and function is very important and how instinctive the camera feels to you in your hand.</p>

<p>But I still think it looks like a ugly beast,;but in the big scheme of things, there are other important considerations; like how does it perform in the real world? Nikon have been doing a very good job for a long, long time.</p>

<p>And the really good thing, for those without pockets full of gold, a Nikon can be picked up very cheaply. Let us have a little think the D7000 for £500 now there's a deal.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

The D7000 is an old model. Yet for $140 less than the price of a D7000 body you can have a current model X-M1 with a

pretty decent lens.

[shutterbud]

<p>Thank you Allen.<br>

I'm sure many of us will be taking a trip down to our local photograhy shop when the XT-1 becomes available.</p>

<p>As ever, whatever you use and whatever you shoot, have fun and good luck!</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Just on that ISO dial....i really like it and the fact that it's on the "wrong" side doesn't bother me. I'm pretty good discerning left from right ;-) And honestly how many times do you change ISO in a day's shooting? The other day We shot from 2:30 - 8pm in hard Aussie sun, open shade and finally the evening with flash. Changed ISO twice, maybe three times. I've just come from that "other" forum where the percentage of bulletheads is unreasonably high. Everyone has a right to be dim, but they just abuse the privilege. Some of the reasons the X-T1 is bad. Yes bad. Doesn't have 1/8000th sec...we're all shooting cheetahs and speeding bullets now. 1/180th flash sync, no touch screen focussing (what are you, 15?), Fuji doesn't have a big enough market share (so we have to check the stock market before we buy a camera?) X trans sensor poor image quality ( this guy is from Cataract City and a notorious DPR troll. He went from Fuji article to Olympus to Zeiss, bagging all the way. I don't think he even owns a camera and rapes the English language with nonsense and something about dual pixel AF ?), EVERYTHING hinges on the upcoming 50-140 lens (yes, some nut actually said that), it's not FF (yeah. It's not humanly possible to take a good picture without FF) and my favourite...it's just a marketing exercise! Oh, and YOUR brands aren't a marketing exercise? AAAAARRGH! So you can imagine my relief coming here lol! You kind of get an idea where they're at when DPR post an article about Don McCullin and very few guys post anything there. Don who? Anyway, sorry about that, I just needed to vent....and the X-T1 is looking awesome, a colleague of mine (D800 wielder) is visiting NYC this april and plans to pick one up there. The Lens Roadmap is looking thrilling and as far as I'm concerned it's a great time to be a photographer. Awesome backgrounds, great light, fascinating subjects, inspiration...but YOU guys know that. Cheers, Mark (hot & bothered) ;-p</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I lasted about 2 weeks before I gave up on DPR fora. The review site is obviously required reading, but the some of the posts on some fora are beyond belief. Don't go anywhere near the Street Forum! It seems to be populated mainly by bitchy 12 year olds who think they are the next HCB.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Don't go anywhere near the Street Forum! It seems to be populated mainly by bitchy 12 year olds who think they are the next HCB."</p>

<p>Well, most of us don't want to be the next HCB, we like to do our own thing.</p>

<p>You had a issue with one person on the street forum. Who, if you actually got to know him is alright sort of bloke. I had had my issues with his direct, in your face comments, but I started to listen to his words rather than listen to my emotions....</p>

<p>We are not all the same in this world it is about give and take.</p>

<p>Do not judge a book by its cover. Old maxim but true.</p>

<p>Your natural home for your, very interesting, photographs is the street forum where you will be welcomed with open arms.</p>

<p>Hey, but expect a bit of banter from time to time.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Old must be...well, just not as good.</p>

<p><a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-M1-vs-Nikon_D7000">http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-M1-vs-Nikon_D7000</a></p>

<p>Did someone mention flare on err...</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p><a href="http://photographylife.com/fuji-x-trans-flare-ghosting-issue">http://photographylife.com/fuji-x-trans-flare-ghosting-issue</a></p>

[andylynn]

<p>Allen, I don't know what the link to Snapsort is about but I can tell you that all digitals with a short flange distance can get that type of effect, which is not actually "flare". Nasim writes some good stuff, but he also sometimes seems to jump at opportunities to report "problems". E.g., he recently reported that the D600 has a problem with its shutter, but only when set to high ISO and a fast shutter speed. It turns out he was just observing AC light flicker. I have thousands of photos shot with various mirrorless cameras that are reported to suffer from that "flare" issue, and only one example that looks anything like this problem, so I feel confident saying this is a rare problem.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>But I still think it looks like a ugly beast,;but in the big scheme of things, there are other important considerations; like how does it perform in the real world? Nikon have been doing a very good <a id="FALINK_2_0_1" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cKhv?start=30">job</a> for a long, long time.<br>

And the really good thing, for those without pockets full of gold, a Nikon can be picked up very cheaply. Let us have a little think the D7000 for £500 now there's a deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the d7000 cost reduction is a good thing but it also brings up some points worth consideration. the Fuji's use the same 16mp sensor but get better IQ and low-light performance. perhaps nikon should have continued improving the 16mp sensor rather than moving to 24mp DX--which creates all kinds of technical/performance issues.--?</p>

<p>also, an XE1 body can be had now for less than a d7000.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Hey Allen,<br>

Thanks for the kind invitation, but I'll pass, for now at least. I had issues with far more than one person, although the person I think you're thinking of should have been banned from DPR months before I even arrived, if the spiteful, adolescent garbage he was spouting when I was there is anything like his normal "output". I have no interest in even reading the ordure which I saw on a regular basis on the forums I visited, at the time of my visits.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>the d7000 cost reduction is a good thing but it also brings up some points worth consideration. the Fuji's use the same 16mp sensor but get better IQ and low-light <a id="itxthook1" href="#" rel="nofollow">performance<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. perhaps nikon should have continued improving the 16mp sensor rather than moving to 24mp DX--which creates all kinds of technical/performance issues.-</em>-?"</p>

<p>FYI, the D7000 and Fuji X cameras don't share the same sensor.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>FYI, the D7000 and Fuji X cameras don't share the same sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, they both share the same 16mp Sony APS-C chip -- also found in the Coolpix A, Ricoh GR, NEX-3, and NEX-5. The Fuji has no AA filter and uses a different color array, which accounts for some of the technical performance differences.</p>

<p>In any event, the point was that instead of moving away from this sensor in its DSLRs, Nikon could have continued to tweak it, thus avoiding some of the issues that the larger 24mp APS-C chip has, such as diffraction and focus accuracy. The Coolpix A, with no AA filter, is sharper than the D7000, as are the Fuji cameras. Fuji also gets better low-light performance out of the same sensor. Another thing they get right is their XF lenses, which are well-matched to the sensor. Nikon's consumer lenses are mostly designed for lower-MP sensors and have issues with both 16mp and 24mp sensors. Yet Nikon effectively stopped making pro or prosumer DX lenses awhile back. Meanwhile Fuji's kit offering, the 18-55, absolutely smokes Canon and Nikon's kit lenses and has earned comparisons to pro lenses for IQ. Fuji's primes are also better than most of nikon's, both in terms of IQ and build quality.</p>

<p>It's for those reasons that people are calling the XT1 the "D400" -- the camera Nikon could, and perhaps should have made. What makes the XT1 so appealing isn't just its spec sheet or build, but the fact that it caters to the prosumer/high-end APS-C audience Nikon more or less abandoned after the d300s. Sure, you can get a D7100 for around the same price, but the Fuji appears to be the more performance-oriented body.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Interesting post.<br>

It does seem strange that Canikon are so willing to give up the middle ground. I might be wrong, but I feel that Canon are in dire need of an upgraded APS-C sensor themselves. I don't think the big two realised how much room there actually is in the middle of the market and with Fuji, Olympus et al demanding more and more "elbow room" and sensor performance at the top of the range almost too demanding, we have a plethora of high performance machines to choose from. The momentum is definitely with mirrorless systems at the moment. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>It does seem strange that Canikon are so willing to give up the middle ground.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think it's the result of a few things: 1) having to protect their preferred upgrade path into full frame, with its higher profit margins; 2) having to cover both full frame and crop sensor lenses; which leads to 3) downgrading APS-C into a consumer format, symbolized by the lack of pro-spec lenses and bodies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think the big two realised how much room there actually is in the middle of the market</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the big two put most of their efforts into competing with each other and continuing to wage the megapixel wars--which may have come back to bite them. So if Canon comes out with a 20mp APS-C sensor, Nikon's response is 24mp APS-C. That's an approach that leaves little room for actual innovation (and as i've outlined earlier in this thread, actually creates technical issues). The big two's response to market trends has been half-assed--i.e., the EOS M and Nikon 1--and they've left off features which could have elevated the products they have put out, such as not putting CLS commander feature on the Coolpix A, which is overpriced for its market segment. Nikon's response to Fuji's retro style was the (overpriced, Frankensteinian) Df -- a camera whose design flaws and bizarre mix of hybrid parts practically guarantee it won't be anywhere near as trendy as the x100 or x100s. and if all you want is retro, why do you need to pay almost $3000 for it when an x100s is $1300, with a lens?</p>

<p>the obvious inference here is that canon and nikon misread, and possibly mistreated, their consumer base by making decisions which maybe helped in the short-term, but resulted in long-term confusion with the direction of their product line (probably moreso in Nikon's case than Canon's). Nikon also made some critical errors with the flawed d600, and not admitting their mistake soon enough--a marked contrast to Fuji, who keep releasing firmware updates to older cameras.</p>

<p>That said, the big two still control most of the DSLR market, and mirrorless sales are still underwhelming despite all the buzz. m4/3 has a deep lens lineup and some interesting bodies, but still has some of the issues that 4/3 did, namely a smaller sensor that is always going to be less capable than larger sensors. Full-frame also has its limitations--cost being the most obvious--and though mirrorless full frame sounds good on paper, both Sony A7 bodies are compromised both in terms of implementation and available native lenses at launch. Meanwhile, we're seeing more and more pros go with Fuji X as their backup or secondary systems, a movement which can only get louder with the announcement of the XT1 and Fuji's new lenses. If mirrorless is generating momentum, it remains to be seen what Canikon can do to regain the hearts and minds of "middle-ground" (non entry-level, non-pro) shooters.</p>

<p>In the meantime, Fuji is a small company and doesn't need to overtake Nikon or Canon in overall sales-- they just need enough of a niche and profitability to continue making products. What i like about the XT1 release is a commitment to the prosumer base which is backed up by a sensible product line and what seems to be a rational, considered market approach. if you buy an XT1 and a lower-end or more compact Fuji X body, you can use the same lenses on each -- making it easy to build a functional multiple body ILC system (which doesnt make total practical sense for the most part with hybrid DX/FX formats). there's also no pressure to move to a different sensor format and invite confusion. I'm not sure if Fuji targeted Nikon purposely, or if they just studied their mistakes and avoided them, but as long as Fuji keeps releasing quality products which are both innovative and timely, while evoking a photographer-centric aesthetic, they stand a chance of weathering the technology storm.</p>

 

[c_watson1]

<p>"...<em>actually, they both share the same 16mp Sony APS-C chip -- also found in the Coolpix A, Ricoh GR, NEX-3, and NEX-5. The Fuji has no AA filter and uses a different color array, which accounts for some of the technical performance differences</em>."<br>

<br /> Which effectively makes it a different chip, especially when coupled with different processing circuitry and Fuji's proprietary filter array.</p>