The new Fuji X-T1 has landed, pre-order now!

195 Comments

1. I’m in the same boat. Started with the X-Pro1 but that didn’t really cut it so I went to the E-M5. I figure it’ll be a bit of a costly switch to replicate what I currently have though. What’s convincing you to switch?

2. Can’t wait to see how it performs, he is a last visitor of hump party, but brings complete packages in him that the others have no. seems like have EM1, A7 , DF and Fuji X in one body. clever guest

3. Can’t wait to see your review on this beast!

4. How does xt1 compare with em1 on auto focus

5. ANy chance this thing will have the live view bulb mode for long exposures like the oly?

6. The huge viewfinder alone make this a winner in my book.

7. Nice look. But I still prefer ovf.
   No step forward until X-pro 2.
   I have X-pro1 and it does the job with a discrete approach.
   I’m afraid this one is very beautifull. but not at all discrete.

8. i was able to try this camera at a photo show here in the Philippines. impressions are:

   – AMAZING Viewfinder! better than the 1DX.
   – AF is blazing fast BUT not EM1 or EM5 fast.
   – Grip is better on the A7/R
   – Build is solid, same as the A7/R
   – Shutter is not that loud.
   – Dials are huge and has very nice feel.
   – IQ, well this is a Fuji so it was nice

   what I love about this is that its more retro looking and in usage actually than a DF. you really have that feel of shooting in an old traditional way for a camera. tried this with a kit lens and using the ring on the lens to control the aperture is really refreshing. overall, im impressed with this.

9. hi. my EVF is the ev1mk bought for use on the rx1. it also works with rx100ii. not sure if that is compatible with nex5 … or if it was even available back then.

   didnt follow a7 line that closely but i understood they used the same EVF internals as they had the same specs.

   if they are not the same unit, then i withdraw my comments. have not had a chance to try the a7 since im very satisfied with the rx1, with the sharp lens and enough headroomto crop down to 50 or 85mm-equivalent perspective with enough pixels for printing

   • Tandi,

     The EV1 MK is a more advanced unit than that for the Nex5, although they share the same styling. I am unable to find out much about its performance but two references may lead one to the conclusion that the MK and the EVF in the A7 could be very similar, if may even be the same in performance.

     The comments both said these EVF’s were better than that in Sony’s top dslr, the A99, but as for the A7 version, redesigned viewing optics reduced distortions and produced a sharper image.

     Because the A7 is a later release than the MK, which has been out for about a year, it may be that indeed the A7 EVF is better because of this. But as I don’t own an MK and you’ve not experienced the A7 EVF neither of us can say.

     However, it does go to show that expressing an opinion not based on proper comparisons can be counter-productive. And in the case of the A7 camera will convey the wrong impression to anyone considering it. For actual A7 users, the viewfinder is a wonder. This doesn’t mean it is the only one, though.

10. The X-T1 looks to be a great camera, but I am disappointed that Fuji did not include any prime lenses in the weather resistant category to go along with the camera. Three zooms and no primes does not seem to correspond with the “high-endedness” of the X-T1. The current 35mm and 56mm X-mount lenses are good glass, to be sure, but neither one is sealed.

    • it is by no means a high end model-that one will the light in one year or so.
      X-T1 is semi-pro camera..whatever this term means

11. “sound of needle scratching across record”

    Af seems sluggish? I though this was the fastest yet and the Fuji guys in their online video showed a series of AF tracking shots where everything was pin sharp.
    Conflicting reports then… we’ll have to see in a real test.

    Full disclosure – does not matter to me as I manual focus.

12. Had a quick look at them in Fuji Film Square Roppongi this morning, the camera feels great in the hand. I’m not used to the Fuji system but it was fairly easy to get to grips with and all of the dials made sense. AF seemed slightly sluggish, but this was only a quick in-store test.

    • Af seems sluggish…uggg.

      • It was just a quick look (on my way to buy bread) and there was a lot of black around, so it could have been improved. I’ve been looking at 5D’s for work recently so that could have influenced the feeling. I’ll probably go back if I get time, it was very nice overall – would be good to test it in the real world.

13. Steve, if you read down this far… Fuji makes a dedicated Leica M adaptor that is programmable and has a specific 27.8mm distance from lens flange to sensor.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/867543-REG/Fujifilm_16267038_M_Mount_Adapter_for.html

    Any comments/chance you can review this?

    Thanks
    Huss

    • More here:

      http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/accessories/lens/mount/fujifilm_m_mount_adapter/

    • I will try to get a hold of one and test it but the only way to get the full performance of those lenses is on full frame. I have shot with Leica glass on all formats and IMO, I only enjoy using them on a Leica or some on an A7.

      • Cool, thanks. The attraction of the new EVF with a 35 Cron (= 52mm equivalent) for MF appeals to me. Wondering how the IQ of the lens will be affected…
        The Xt1 looks more ‘retro’ than the DF as the proportions are better. Should match up great ergonomically with M mount lenses.

        • Hi,

          I used a 28 f2.8 (current version) on an X camera and noticed no real difference in resolution between it and the Fuji 35mm lens. That leads me to believe that the sensor is the limiting factor, so a 35 should perform equally well. It (the 28) really works well, its only a shame about the crop.

          From a technical perspective the T1 looks real good for use with MF lenses however I’m waiting to see what Leica release as a system camera. Leica has a bit more class and design ability … the T1 is ugly IMO.

          Tim.

14. MY, my. More talk about the A7 then new Fuji. If you do not understand why the Fuji X series is a very fine system. To make sure all the A7/R guys are happy, everyone should start their comments with. “The Sony A7/R is the finest camera in the world. If you use anything but this camera or an othe FF camera you a shooting with junk”. If you own a A7 or want great. But do you not think the rest should left to talking about the Fuji camera. Why talk about an other camera other then to the being presented. Comparisons are fine, I have read little about the new camera.

    • Karl,

      In jest, I felt like taking you up on your suggestion about how to start this conversation, lol, but if you want to see what I feel about my A7, just pop up and look at posting #31.

      It is inevitable that any new camera announcement, for this is all this is, is going to invite comparison with others and will inevitably divide opinion. The problem with this new Fuji is no one has used it. It isn’t available so for the present all comments about it are as rice paper in the wind.

      But, nevertheless, just by its press release and images it has generated a lot of interest.

      • As you say will bring up comparisons, to camera that no one has used yet, they already know the answers.

15. TerryB,
    as someone who owns an EVF identical to that in the a7/a7r (i.e. $ invested in it), ill say its terrible. no effusive praise because it does not deserve any. compared to the em1 (which i also own) that is larger, faster, sharper corner-to-corner, more accurate in terms of brightness.

    not sure what it is about the sony unit but my eyesight is normal, but can never get a sharp picture from sony. sub-mm movement aft-fro-left-right and parts of the image blurs up. changes to the diopter adjustment doesnt help (and its a wonky adjustment slider too). also get a “tunnel” effect looking into it. just not very fun to use for a 500$ unit.

    the actual pictures that sony cams produce however is faultless

    • Hello, Tandi.

      Thanks for you interesting observations. Unfortunately, I don’t have any experience of the EM 1 with which to compare, but I understand it has an excellent EVF.

      Will you clarify something for me, please? You say you own an EVF that is identical to that in the A7, but then some comments you make lead me to suspect it isn’t the same.

      You say it has a sliding dioptre adjuster and it cost you $500. These two comments alone tell me you have the Sony add-on EVF which they brought out for the Nex 5N in 2011. Thus your experience is not with the EVF in the A7 and you are thus assuming that they are one and the same? Would I be correct?

      On paper, the spec of the add-on OLED EVF for the 5N is the same as the built-in OLED of the A7 and both sport around 2.4m dots. But I can tell you that they are not the same unit. I have the older one with my Nex 5N and indeed when it came out it was a revelation as it was so far ahead of the then EVF’s in other cameras. Because it was so much better than other EVF’s at the time, its foibles tended to be passed over. But I do now recognise the issues you raise when you use it and largely agree.

      But time marches on and the EVF in the A7 is a much improved unit. I recognise the older unit for what it now represents in comparison, but please go and have a look at the EVF in the A7 if you can, if only to confirm it is as good as most people say. OK, it may not be King of the Hill, and it may not approach you EM 1, but we are stuck with our camera systems, so best get on and take some photos.

16. Best CSC camera design yet IMO. I don’t own a Fuji X camera yet but I may buy an XT-1 and some lenses later on.

    Looking forward to Steve’s review of it.

17. Without a review, we know that the IQ is brilliant with these sensors, the primes will deliver shallow depth of field and they have great contrast/character to enhance the 3d pop if that’s what is desired (not much between this and FF considering these can be shot wide open as they’re tac sharp), all fuji cameras are fully supported by Fuji which is evident with firmware updates, the lens offerings by the end of this year will surpass Olympus (already does with quality), support for the X-Trans (and knowledge of correct process) is across the board now, brilliant ergonomics, easily seen by the photos (one dial away to change a setting), fantastic forward thinking with the EVF views, what else does anyone need? Fast auto focus, I’m sure it’s fast enough. Weather sealed lenses? The primes aren’t but how many weather sealed lenses from any company are out there?

    Why this rant???

    Unfortunately, the real world reviews have become a foundation to tout other brands, the IQ which is always hammered in this site is so subjective, the RAW performance is always the same story when the Fuji is reviewed (although no one else has issues) and these opinions simply open the door for comparisons (please read any review about fuji) with Sony and Olympus…. it’s never Apples with Apples anymore with this site, a great pity.

    • No matter how good a camera will be, you will always have people either liking it or not. I do believe that this camera will sell very well. I think that Fuji has a winner. As for the quality of Olympus lenses, I can’t say that I agree with you when you say that Fuji lenses are better than Olympus lenses.

      • You cannot compare Fuji and Olympus lenses in a vacuum without factoring in the sensor, because both are optimized to work specifically with their own sensors.

        As a general point, I would postulate that both companies produce superlative optics and it really comes down to evaluating individual pieces of glass within each lineup.

        More generally, most of these lenses will produce IQ better than what the average photographer can wring out of them. People need to bear in mind that choices in composition, FOV, DOF and most of all, lighting, will make the biggest differences in their photographs … not the camera in question (pre-supposing a certain level of gear quality, that is).

        • Agreed and my comments were a little misleading. Olympus makes great glass, always has but I believe the lens lineup will be bettered by Fuji by the end of year.

          My comment was targeting the recent reviews I have read. I agree with many regarding Fuji but there is a consistent tune which is not only very unfair, but very wrong when it comes to IQ, build quality and lenses available.

          Example, read posts, Olympus is the “system winner” due to their lens line up and the Sony A7 is great due to a large EVF, it’s great for legacy lenses… which it would have to be considering its lens line up.

          Fuji is no where! These reviews are not objective. The excuse of “Real World” review needs to have a meaning. Not just a diatribe leading onto a subject of another manufacturer to promote their product.

          I could go on but people will take what they read into account when wanting to commit to a purchase… which is more than just the camera. Now, the EM10 is considered to be a competitor against Fuji due to price but when Leica is discussed, and discussed, and discussed, the 5x – 10x price ticket justifies the purchase depending how one reads it.

          I’m a D4 user in the field but still use the F3 that I’ve had for over 25 years for leisure and I’m waiting for a good quality intuitive camera that is FF or can get me results close to. I’ve been lucky enough to use the 14mm, 23mm and 56mm (pre-production) on the XE-1 and the results were amazing… the camera had some issues.

          So yep, another rant but EM10 is not in the same class as the new Fuji if it’s 90% of what it claims to be.

          Is Fuji better than Olympus, Sony… NO… but neither is it any worse, just different.

          • Not sure the M4/3 lens lineup will be “bettered”. Bettered, how? M4/3 already has north of 55 choices. By year-end 4 of those choices will actually be Leica-designed optics. Not slagging the Fuji optics; many of them are great. I have XF35mm f/1.4 R and it’s superb.

            I agree there are no real “winners” here; just the consumer, truthfully. We’re spoilt for choice in 2014.

            As to the Sony A7 series, it’s a white elephant, IMO. It’s pointless to use legacy glass on it, for a whole host of reasons (read Tom Grill’s report on using Leica M glass on the A7r here >> http://leicarumors.com/2014/01/22/review-using-leica-m-lenses-on-the-36mp-sony-a7r-mirrorless-camera.aspx/ His conclusion? Don’t bother.) That leaves you with the dedicated Sony/Zeiss optics, which are either going to be humungous on those bodies … or be SLOW glass.

            I’m also a long-time dedicated Nikon shooter (who also has a Fuji XP1) and still retain most of the bodies from Nikon’s lineup, up to the D3s and D7000.

            My experience with the Fuji has been a real mixed bag. When it nails the image, it really nails it, and the jpegs it turns out have impressed me greatly (though not everyone feels the same way about the jpegs). But unfortunately the cons began to outweigh the pros for me … mostly to do with operational speed and post production workflow. Let me quote what a professional photographer whose work I greatly admired said to me privately last week about working with the Fuji kit >>

            “The Fujis are not yet credible tools in my view and the pros I know who own them are, with very few exceptions, still reliant on their DSLRs … Fuji’s X Trans technology failed to meet my print quality criteria on skin and hair texture … The Olympus equipment on the other hand will see one through pretty much every conceivable eventuality as well as having some notable benefits over DSLRs … I’ve had conversations with Fuji heads and my conclusion is that they probably still lack the investment capacity to come up with the necessary improvements in their technology … as a consequence Adobe have resisted investing their own overhead and manpower in fully solving the X Trans algorithms.”

            btw: I heard from a trusted and very reliable source last night that a digital Nikon SP rangefinder-type camera is something that the brass at Nikon Japan have been giving thought to. Whether it will ever happen is another story … but I know they have been actively seeking feedback on the public’s reaction to the Df.

            I agree these cameras are no better or worse than each other, they’re just different. They have different objectives and serve different needs. We may obsess over gear, but at the end of the day, a camera is just a tool. The operator makes (or breaks) the picture.

          • Thanks Robert for your views (and info of a possible Digital SP).

            Couldn’t be more right about the RAW support and I’m surprised that Fuji isn’t doing everything that they can to support/encourage Adobe and Co to get this right.

          • There’s an excellent article by Martin Doppelbauer here >>

            http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/fujixe1/

            He talks about what Fuji’s doing with the X-Trans images, including:

            – artificially inflating the ISO values by between 1.5 and 2 stops

            – the continuing difficulties of effectively processing RAW files without some sort of compromise one way or the other (depending on the RAW developer you use)

            Meanwhile, for those who still cling to the idea that the Olympus OM-D E-M1 cannot produce files of tremendous quality, have a look here >>

            http://buchangrant.com/blog/?p=1979

18. Fuji is definitely investing very, very heavily in their APS-C mirrorless offerings, and at a substantial loss. They must see a significant market here in the future … and it looks like they’re determined to dominate it.

    This could be the mirrorless product that starts pulling people away from cameras like the NikonD7100/Canon70D or even the NikonD600/Canon6D.

    And it’s likely to steal sales from the E-M1, too.

    Clearly, Fuji could have put the same EVF in a rangefinder form, but I think the strategy here is to intentionally make it look like a DSLR because the vast majority of buyers in Europe and North America still associate the SLR/DSLR form factor — rightly or wrongly — with a more “serious” camera (after all, it’s been by far the most popular form factor for the past 40 years).

    So this is a deliberate move on Fuji’s part to pull more buyers into their mirrorless camp.

    I’m guessing this was Olympus’ design strategy with the E-M5/E-M1, too.

    And I think Samsung just released a new mirrorless model in a DSLR form factor as well.

    The assault on the DSLR continues. Just a matter of time now before Nikon and Canon get the memo.

    • Fuji invested heavily in mirrorless, true, but only after failing in DSLRs. This was their last chance.

      Four years ago many were predicting the death of the DSLR and the ascent of mirrorless. Now that mirrorless is tanking even faster than DSLRs, it is as you say, the mirrorless vendors are trying to deliver cargo cult products that mimic DSLRs. If they truly thought DSLRs were dying this would be the last thing they’d do.

      Indeed, when they came out they trumpeted how mirrorless could deliver smaller bodies, lenses, at lighter weight and especially at lower cost. Now they are trying to play catch up, and the mark of an advanced EVF is how closely it appears like a DSLR viewfinder.

      Canon and Nikon are profitable. They are still selling more DSLRs than all other interchangeable lens cameras combined. Importantly, they are each more successful in the mirrorless space than Fuji is. I think they got the memo a long time ago.

      • Haha. You clearly haven’t read any of my previous posts around here. 😉

        Yeah, mirrorless represents a tiny fraction of DSLR sales. Both are down globally, mirrorless much more so. I’ve been writing about this for the past year.

        But there’s a new frontier opening up in camera design (mirrorless), and Fuji is one company that believes it will grow, and is determined to dominate it. They have enough other ventures that they could have taken their lackluster DSLR experiences, quit cameras a while ago, saved a pile of R&D money, and just left well-enough alone.

        But they see enough opportunity in this emerging market to invest in it. And invest in it they are. Heavily. They’re “planting their flag” with this.

        Here’s the problem the DSLR faces: the evolution has reached its zenith, and many photographers (especially pros doing reportage/editorial work) are growing weary of the ever-increasing portliness of the pro models when there are new options out there that show they don’t necessarily need it anymore.

        The DSLR has several Achilles Heels that the mirrorless manufacturers are targeting right now (I won’t get into all the costs involved with manufacturing mechanical mirror boxes and so forth). Once these new mirrorless cameras crack focus speed & tracking, battery usage, EVF quality & refresh rates, and system support, the reasons for lugging a big, heavy DSLR start to diminish. If they add fully sorted social media integration, it’s game over. I think all of that stuff is no more than 24 months away. Some of it is almost there now.

        As to Nikon and Canon getting the memo, yeah, no doubt they see what’s going on, but they’re so heavily invested in the relatively profitable DSLR right now, that they probably aren’t as worried about the storm clouds gathering on the distant horizon as they should be.

        I just hope that when the Nor’easter blows in, that they do indeed have designs on the drawing board that they can fast-track. When they do, and if they execute them properly, then I suspect they will start to pull mirrorless market share away from Fuji / Olympus, etc. And if that happens it could spell the death of THOSE company’s camera divisions once and for all.

        • Where do you get your figures Robert? I would be interested to follow them.

          • P.s.: Robert, as tempting and exciting as the X-T1 may be (and it is), as the latest step in the evolution you describe, I don’t find the camera and lenses significantly smaller and lighter than what I expect the D610/6D/Df generation to be in say four years. I would think another 10 to 15 % loss in size and weight is possible in full frame with a traditional mirror box. Mirror box and sensor size (followed by ergonomics) are the deciding factors.

            What’s your view?

          • Most of the stats on camera sales are available from CIPA (http://www.cipa.jp/index_e.html)

            Generally, I would say the Fujinon APS-C lenses are about 20% smaller than the equivalent DX lenses from Nikon. But there really isn’t an equivalency here, because Nikon has all but halted development of DX lenses. Fuji already has a larger lineup of APS-C lenses than Nikon does.

            Expectations on the D610/6D/Df generation in four years is way too speculative for me. The current Nikon entry-level APS-C bodies are already quite small. Making the full-frame DSLRs smaller, as you suggest, while retaining a mirror box might be possible, but I think you’ll see Nikon and Canon start shifting here … and reserving the mirror box only for their professional, semi-professional (and possibly one advanced enthusiast) models, while the rest transition to EVFs.

            Once EVFs climb past 3 million pixels of resolution, and refresh rates are improved to real time, they become the better solution for most people … and eventually will be cheaper to produce than mirror boxes, which still require mechanical complexity (especially when working with higher frame rates and the stresses involved).

          • as an enthusiast I do not want to keep any mirror box , old technology reservation in any future cameras I can potentially use. That is the reason I am (we are) here on the Steve’s photo community! I am tried by the flipping mirror, I want to have modern live-view tech., not possible to be implemented with any mirror box. Most of us here just do want to play with capable enough cameras (enough not necessarily means FF as some indicate), we do not want even touch such monsters like the DF. But I personally like the stagnation of the Canonic enterprise for one simple reason: with my Oly, with my Fuji or Pana I just can be somewhat different than the thousands carrying in sweat the dinosaurs 😉 Does it sound childish! Yes -it does …but it is just funny!

        • I’d just like to add that Canon and Nikon with their dslr’s dominate the pro market and so as yet I doubt they fear any inroads into their market share in this sector. But the moment cameras such as the A7 and inevitably similar offerings from other companies start making inroads into their turf then they will have to respond. And both companies have the advantage of an existing wide range of lenses. They will only need to address the bodies.

19. I also noticed at their Fuji site that they do make their own Leica M to Fuji mount adapter which does have very minimal electronics!

20. Steve does the 56mm 1.2 lens have stabilization or is it just AF? Also i noticed the aperture ring on this lens. Does it have the aperture ring on all its lenses? I love the dials and it does look very good indeed!

    • It’s not stabilized.

      • thank you!

    • All XF lenses have an aperture ring, but the lower-tier XC lenses do not.

      • thanks!

      • BTW I went to the fuji website it tells you which XF lens have a ring and which ones do not:-).

      • XF27 is the only XF lens that doesn’t feature an aperture ring, it’s a pancake though.

21. Nice. I’m very excited and optimistic this will be a top level camera that will push a lot of competitors to do their best to top such a well rounded and capable camera such as the X-T1.

    Pretty much know everything there is to know about this camera from all the leaked info and quick previews that have spawned up in the past few hours since it’s official announcement.

    I have little doubt about the enhanced performance.. the IQ will definitely be there and it looks to be the smoothest fastest operating X camera to date!

    My main focus is seeing whether or not the camera has the AF to truly compete. Fast AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ACCURATE & RELIABLE.

    I’d also like to see some other details that may not be known.. get a better view and idea of how the configurable EVF works in practice.. especially when it comes to focus assist.. I admit I am intrigued how they can split the view screen to have a normal view and a focus assist view on the side with focus peaking and/or split image focusing. I imagine you can even more easily confirm and zero in on fine focusing since you have a normal view to see what’s visually in focus as well as the assisted information to the side.. Quite impressive! It ill be interesting to see how well it works in actual use and practice! I would especially be interested to know if it is possible to get a full screen with focus assist, especially if you can get the split image overlay in the center (or wherever your focus point/area) is positioned so it functions much like a classic rangefinder or slr with similar type of focus handling!

    Looking forward to your full review on this one, Steve!

22. Michael, Indeed, I’ve been considering doing just that. May still.

23. I wish X-E2 has ISO dial on it,. Would be perfect.
    I’ll wait till X-E2 get a bit cheaper and then will sell my 5D.
    This one looks good too but way to expensive for me.

24. This is the first small sensor mirrorless that is really exiting. The sample pictures at the Fuji site looks very promising and are potentially much better than everything else in this segment.

    • It just came out. Shouldn’t be exiting for at least a year, maybe more.

      • You should say, ‘should be exciting for at least a month’. At least until something new comes out in in the next month or so.

        • Yeah, it is exciting until the next Sony, Olympus or Xpro 2 is announced.

          • Exactly.

25. If Fuji did indeed address the focusing speed of their X bodies with this camera, that would be great! I’ve had my X-E1 for about 4 months, and LOVE the images. While focusing speed isn’t dog slow, it needs to be improved, but I’ve found focusing accuracy to be a big improvement over the Sony a65 I owned.

    Absolutely love having direct access to shutter speed and exposure comp dials.

26. those manual dials looks beautiful to me.

27. Finally, we can see the golden era of the film SLR design again. No PASM and aperture ring. Wait… where is the aperture ring???

    • On the lens barrel, where it should be.

      Also, I read that the front and rear dials can also control shutter and aperture as desired.

28. see how the predictive focus works on the Fujirumors…this feature alone is game changer (for some) and the EVF!
    But OK, let us assume for a minute it is e.g. 20% slower that the OMD…would it make it a bad camera?!

    • Excellent point. None of the cameras usually discussed in these forums is actually bad. They’re simply different, and we will always have our own preferences.

      I put up with the (alleged) shortcomings in my A7 simply because for me its killer feature, FF, allows me to use my Leica R lenses, and other makes, at their designed full FoV. Now this may be of absolutely no relevance to anybody else, but it is to me.

29. Something that came up iDPR’s first impressions: you can’t move the single AF point around with the four way controller, you have to go through some steps involving the menu. Very disappointing.

    • I read that all you do is press a single button (which you can designate) and then change the AF point with the 4way controller. Not sure why anyone said you need to go into the menu, but I’m pretty sure you don’t.

      • Same as X-E1 , press down then press any of the 4 way buttons to move the AF Point, pretty simple.

        But on the X-T1 you can configure the button to any of the 4 way buttons.

        Im getting a hands on the X-T1 tomorow in Manila theres a trade show here for a few days cant wait !!

30. Did someone menton this? There’s actually a very nice Fujiguys instruction video on Fujirumors. It really is a nice camera.

31. This looks like a very promising camera. I’ve had my Fuji X-E1 for just short of an year now and I absolutely love the camera, the controls and the pictures it produces. I’ve only had a few “complaints” or more like improvement ideas and all of them have been included in this new camera. Also Fuji brings this capable camera with all these new features out with the same list price as X-E1 & 2 when they were first released ~1200€ (body only).

    This camera is like the great Olympus E-M1 but with some Fuji touch, larger APS-C sensor, brilliant XF glass and not much bigger in size. This is the kind of (mirrorless) camera I’ve been personally waiting for, perfect balance between size, image quality, ISO performance, manual controls, price and with rugged weather sealed body! This with the new line of mirrorless cameras like the E-M1 does not promise good for the future of DSLR’s if you ask me..

    Also worth checking the extensive preview and praises of this camera in Fuji Rumors first look post!

    • No, this is smaller in size than the bulky EM-1. Larger format, smaller size, a lot to like.

      • Bulky EM-1, that is so funny. Everything is relative. If you had said bulky Sony A850 then I would understand. Based on what I have seen on the web, this new Fuji is not smaller in size than the ‘bulky EM-1’.

        • Overall it is slightly smaller, mainly in depth due to grip size. Em1 is designed to also use old 4/3 lenses so I guess that’s why Oly put such a big grip. Xt1 has a larger grip as an accessory too for those who wish it.

32. Third version of basically the same camera different skin something completely new like ff would have been nice don’t ya think?

    • Coming in less than 2 years!

      • If you like this camera don’t wait for Fuji to make a full frame camera two years from now. You might not be alive in two year’s time. Even though I think that it’s really nice, I won’t be buying this camera . I just have too many cameras lying around.

33. What is the point to prefer this Fuji over an DSLR?

    DSLR size, weight, shape and (after several years of R&D) speed, but at higher price and with need for a new set of lenses which also cost more than those for SLR.

    • Apart from losing the pointless bulk of an APS-C DSLR, you gain native lens selection.

      I used to be a Nikon DX user myself. If Nikon would have released high quality lenses like the 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 17-55/2.8-4 OIS, I probably would not have sold my Nikon gear.

      Instead, as a Nikon user you get a mediocre 35/1.8 and that’s it.

      As a Canon user, you’re even worse off with no native primes and a lousy 1.6x crop.

      • Nikon have 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 58/1.4 lenses for their full frame cameras that can be used on DX-cameras as well! And both Sigma and Tamron make fast and stabilized DX mid-zooms.
        So what are you complaining about? Price? Size?

        If you looked around you would notice that all wide angle lenses for DX cameras are BIGGER than their FX, full frame equivalent lenses, which of course mean they are much bigger than most lenses for mirrorless APS-C and smaller formats cameras.

        That’s the price to pay for the full frame compatible mount and registration distance on DX DSLRs. And the reason we haven’t seen any WA DX DSLR lenses from Nikon and Canon while Pentax offerings are mosly slow to keep the size down.

        Nikon also make two DX macro lenses, the 40/2.8 and 85/3.5 VR, and Canon has the EF-S 60/2.8 macro.

34. Just another smaller slr look a like. I will stay with the X Pro. It at least has a look and uniqueness that no other current camera does. And I love it for what and how I shoot.

    • The X-Pro1 is a unique camera; I like it.

35. It looks to be promising…but Amazon does not sell items returned as open box…but as brand new…I ordered an X100s…and when I got it…there were a couple images on it…as it has a small internal memory…and the camera manual had orange stuff on as if the person were eating cheetos…also a friend of mine ordered a Zuiko 75 1.8 from adorama…it came with fingerprints all over it and a chunk of plastic was gouged from the lens cap….both of these items were sold as new.

    • Maybe I have not looked hard enough, but I have not seen “open box” items for sale on any of these sites so I am not surprised.

36. Looks beautiful. Can’t wait for your review. HOWEVER, I checked out the specs, and yet another camera only offering ISO 200 at low end. What are these manufacturers thinking? Can someone tell me why so many cameras start at 200. That, alone, will keep me from buying a camera.

    • Theodore…my understanding is that these camera manufacturers feel that at ISO 100 the dynamic range is not as good . I do not know if that is true but I do know I read that in a review somewhere

    • Theodore,

      Base ISO is 200, but it can be expanded to 100, with possibly a slight reduction in DR as Florence points out.

      The Sony A7 base is 100 and can be expanded to ISO 50 in 1/3rd increments. Tests of the A7 do reveal that when using ISO 50 dynamic range at the black end of the spectrum is marginally extended over the ISO 100 setting, but white clips at about 1 stop earlier. So overall DR is marginally compromised by about 1/2 stop.

      What I can’t find out, and would like to know, does using the lower ISO actually produce a less noisy image, or is it really only of use in giving us slightly more shutter control at wider apertures?

37. Four camera bodies in two years targeting the same customer and market segment. Fuji is still on the search for a clear product and brand positioning strategy. The camera looks good on paper, as did the X100, XPro1, XE1, XE2. I was Fuji beta tester (early adopter) three times and learned that Fuji sells one of the most expensive system when the rapid loss of resale values for Fuji gear is taken into consideration.

    • X100 is still worth about $600 used. For a camera that is 4 years old with an updated version, that is really good.

      • I agree and part of it`s appeal is the fact that it`s files are easy and predictable to work with, unlike the X-trans output. Used XE-1s are available for next to nothing.

38. Any chance we’ll ever see a review of the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens? It’s been out for quite some time now…

39. Fuji camera development team is skimming away rolling out both cameras and lenses faster than all the major brands… Nikon, Canon, and to a slightly lesser extant, Sony does not seem to be matching the pace of Fuji. This DSLR look mirrorless camera is the right approach, instead of Sony’s A3000 which has a great sensor, but everything-else way under specified.

    The only thing Fuji need to advance upon is higher than the 16Mp sensors they seem to be stuck at… There is only so many iteration of cameras one can come up with based on the same sensor. Come on Fuji, get that 24Mp APSc sensor out before any further new cameras, than keep rolling on the FF master plan .

    • I’m glad Fuji doesn’t take part in the megapixel war. I’m perfectly happy with the 16mp in X-E1 and the results are amazing, good enough for large prints also. I’m would be more concerned in the ISO performance, but that already is at great level and getting better. Of course I would not say no to 24mp sensor if they wanted to stick that in the future cameras but I don’t think that’s necessary, if you want/ need a mp monster just buy a high end dslr!

    • I don’t see that Fuji is churning out things faster than anyone else. In fact, Fuji’s management has stated that is exactly the opposite of its corporate goals.

      I’m trying to figure out what is so great about this compared to the great XE-2. It seems like essentially the same camera with the same image quality, better gaskets, and just possibly faster autofocus. Although of course a few months ago Fuji announced the XE-2 as having the world’s fastest autofocus (and backpedaled after). Of course, it looks very cool.

      But this seems in a way similar to the EM1 evolution from the EM5. Essentially the same picture-taking capability, minor advances in a couple secondary features.

      Oh, and the new model is much more expensive than the existing already expensive model.

      There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of real advances coming from anyone. This may be the golden age, folks.

      The real innovation to come seems to be in the price/performance ratio. Camera makers refuse to acknowledge their products are too expensive, and so the market is collapsing. Squeezed margins is the new reality.

      • Yeah, they are too expensive for what they are. But Fuji in particular is putting out cameras at a stupid pace into a small market. Does that make any sense at all? Lenses are pretty expensive too, prices are up 50% for the new ones over the original primes.

        In the past 2 years there has been the: X Pro1, E1, E2, M1, A1 and now T1. Add to that an x100, x100s, x10, x20, XF1 and that and X thing or two that nobody buys.

        I have an XP1 but not really sure this system has evolved into anything other than rather expensive for what it is.

40. 18-55mm, will it be 27-80mm in 35mm eqv??

    • I think it’s 27 – 82.5 (FF equiv FL).

      What is the Fuji X crop factor? I used 1.5 for those numbers.

41. This is the body Nikon should have made as a D 400 🙁

    • Off you go to Nikonrumors; that’s the place to whine about the (never coming) D400! 😉

    • I agree. It’s a handsome camera, but if it was a Nikon I’d like it adult-sized, to balance properly in the hand when connected to more than a pancake-type lens.

      • There are 2 accessory grips for X-T1 for people using big lenses or who have big gorilla hands. Problem solved.

42. remminds me my old canon f1-new which I loved. I’ll probably buy one xt1

43. Fuji won’t do FF just yet. They have to develop lenses for a FF body so work in progress that one. I think also they are supporting the original adopters of there X series lenses which is good to see. That said it won’t be too long I’d think (maybe end of year) before a FF of some sort comes along.

    • I don’t think Fuji has any plans to go FF. The head of the company recently threw down the gauntlet and asked people to show him a reason why a full frame sensor would offer any real world benefits.

      With their evolving X-Trans tech (and organic tech on the way), there’s unlikely to be any IQ benefits … but a whole lot of downsides when it comes to size and weight.

      A FF camera will require a whole new lens lineup (as you said) and if Fuji were to continue wanting to give the public fast primes in a new FF ecosystem, the lenses would grow to Nikon/Canon size … thereby defeating the whole purpose of their X-System, IMO.

      I don’t see FF coming from Fuji, frankly.

    • Also, forgot to add: Fuji is investing sh*tpiles of money into this current X-System at a HUGE loss.

      It’s unlikely they’re going to open up another financial vein by introducing another entire range of cameras/lenses for full frame.

      • I agree with you, but remember, companies react to the market. Fuji will say that they will not go Full Frame because they do not have a reason to at the moment. However, if the Sony A7 was to mature (more lenses, all camera issues fixed) and people start purchasing the Sony, Fuji may test the waters.

        • It’s a question of ROI in a market (mirrorless) that’s already very tiny and losing money. Fuji’s presently over-extended with the current X lineup, and continuing to roll out lenses for the APS-C format. Since the current X-Trans sensor easily matches many full-frame sensors for overall IQ — while maintaining a smaller form factor — there’s not much reason to worry about Sony’s strategy, because Sony’s strategy is going to fail, IMO.

          Why do I say that? Well, aside from their track record of not sticking with (nor properly backing) systems they bring out, look at the lenses Sony introduced with the A7 series. They’re all SLOW. They have to be. If Sony introduces fast primes (or god forbid fast zooms) specifically for the A7 cameras, they’ll be enormous. Then the whole ergonomic, haptic, balance equation immediately goes to hell in a hand-basket.

          The only way around this is to spend the R&D money necessary to engineer smaller autofocus full frame lenses. It’s probably possible. If there’s one thing the Japanese electronics industry has demonstrated in the past half-century it’s that they’re the best in the world at miniaturization. That said, I doubt Sony will show that level of commitment to such a large engineering undertaking.

          Meanwhile, sensor technology WILL get better, and APS-C (and even M4/3) will continue to see performance improvements even as they benefit from smaller physical bodies to begin with.

          Bottom line: I don’t see FF from Fuji anytime soon.

          ‘Course, I could be wrong. I expected the X-T1 price to be higher, too, and I was way off on that. Plaudits to Fuji for introducing such a capable camera at a reasonable pice.

          • Robert,

            If electrical engineering in miniature is anything to go by, my money would be on Sony. They are past masters at it. Remember the first
            Walkman cassette player and their incredibly small portable DAT and MD recorders? Sony went where others merely followed. The smallest body to house an APS-C sensor in the first Nex 5 models. And with the A7 and A7r they are still at it. The smallest FF digital camera bodies out there.

            And because of third party support for adapters, the E mount has to be the most versatile. This won’t appeal to everyone, but then there are other excellent camera choices for them.

            Yes, APS-C and 4/3rds will continue to get better and this has to be good all round. But FF developments will proceed at a pace as well, so will always be better. There is a limit to how small you can make a body that is usable and this is governed by the human hand.

            Optical laws limit how small a lens can be for a given focal length and aperture, and this is without taking into account the necessary bulk of AF mechanism and IS. Relative to body size, then, a Sony Alpha 7 is going to look slightly mismatched.

            But why the obsession against SLOW lenses, as you put it? Not everyone wants to or needs to shoot with super fast lenses at f0.95 or even f1.4. And I would have thought that most photographers know that every lens for general photographic use needs to be stopped down to at least f4 to f5.6 to give of its best.

            It’s horses for courses, and we don’t always ride the same nag. lol.

          • “Yes, APS-C and 4/3rds will continue to get better and this has to be good all round. But FF developments will proceed at a pace as well, so will always be better. There is a limit to how small you can make a body that is usable and this is governed by the human hand.”

            —

            Yes, FF will, of course, see the same technological improvements as APS-C and M4/3. The point here is that we may pass a level of sufficiency for serious hobbyists and even pros (some believe we’re there now for most applications), where the increases in resolution are just icing on the cake … and the real-world advantage will go to smaller, lighter systems.

            There’s a point at which the acuity perception of the human eye is passed … and the only advantage to the bigger format will be ginormous-sized prints or extreme cropping scenarios.

            You’re right about sizing to the human hand. The bigger issue here, I think, is weight. I believe Olympus has struck the perfect balance with both in a serious camera with the OM-D E-M1.

            A word about the miniaturization issue: Yes, Sony has been a bullwark in this area over the past 50 years. But they’ve done it mostly in audio electronics. They have no experience trying to do it in optics (nor do I think they have the commitment to do so). There are some mechanical limitations to what can be done while still incorporating autofocus, internal focus, IS, etc.

            I see it as a significant engineering challenge for Sony/Cosina. I think if it happens it’s more likely to come from Canon and/or Nikon.

          • Hi, Robert.

            I take your point about the lenses for Sony cameras. Sony have proved their expertise on the electrical front with their camera bodies, but unfortunately they don’t make their lenses. I do wonder why they do have to be so large, though.

            If the same performance and spec could be got from a smaller physical form, why didn’t Sony put out a spec to this effect? Having said this, though, are they that much larger than the modern equivalents from Canon or NIkon?

          • “I do wonder why they do have to be so large, though … If the same performance and spec could be got from a smaller physical form, why didn’t Sony put out a spec to this effect? Having said this, though, are they that much larger than the modern equivalents from Canon or NIkon?”

            —

            The engineering challenge of making full-frame lenses with autofocus motors and image stabilization, etc that are close to the size of Leica M lenses has not been undertaken yet.

            I’m not even sure if it’s possible, frankly.

            When you stop and consider the requisite size of the exit pupil and then the amount of mechanical housing buildup surrounding the optics themselves, Leica M lenses are as small as technology will allow. If you start adding autofocus motors and all the other electronics that go into most of today’s Japanese lenses, you get a bigger physical lens.

            Perhaps the autofocus motors, etc can be engineered to be a little smaller, but then what about fast lenses? Even Leica’s Noct M glass is the size of many DSLR lenses, with no autofocus.

            Again, this is the Achilles Heel of the Sony A7 system. And why it will never be more than a fringe product, IMO. Sony just doesn’t understand the importance of the cohesively designed system approach. And that’s their relative lack of experience as a camera manufacturer showing.

          • Fuji have significant experience of producing excellent medium and large format lenses. They also made excellent medium format rangefinder cameras with integral lenses as well as their 6×8 SLR, and in the past 35mm SLR and rangefinders. No autofocus or zoom of course but of reasonable size. Is there any reason why they could not produce manual focus lenses to fit a 40mm x 40mm sensor in a rangefinder style body They could even offer a ‘fully manual’ version? For a travel version of their 6×9 with the same fixed w/a 65mm lens and large sensor it would be worth the extra weight for the Suberin I age quality!

          • Sorry phrase….. superb I age quality

44. In the “looks” department, when I saw this image my immediate reaction was “wow” but then my instant reaction was severely tempered when I learned it was APS-C. Thus it is no competitor for my A7 affections.

    • Why are ppl so in love with FF? FF isnt something magical that makes your photos shine. Its a larger sensor which will give you a little shallower dof, bigger and bulkier lenses, slightly better IQ which really isnt that noticeable. Why dont go to medium format if sensor size is all that matters? This FF hysteria is so exaggerated.

      • Henry,

        You could have added much larger file sizes as well. 🙂 No, for me, you’ve missed off the killer feature – being able to use my collection of legacy 35mm camera lenses at their native FoV.

        Admittedly, nearly all have to be used in manual mode, that suits my sedate style of photography, I’ve never missed a shot of a building yet, lol, but I now have, for example, an f2/28mm that works as it should, not an f2/42mm as it is on APS-C. Now I have access to all my Leica R lenses and Voigtlander, and some others..

        Using a Viltrox adapter even some of my Canon lenses autofocus, albeit at a pedestrian pace, and all can be used in PASM mode.

      • You’re so wrong Henry. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, knows that full frame is required to produce a good image. I’m really at a loss why you don’t recognize this. It’s plain and simple FACT.

        • “Full frame” is just an invention of the movie business in the early 1900’s. When Leica adopted the film for a travel camera in the 1920’s it became what we know as “full frame”. There’s nothing magical or special about 35mm. As technology progresses there is no reason to believe that other sensor sizes cannot produce excellent results.

          What matters most is the size of the individual photo receptors – you need enough area to capture enough photons to overcome the signal-to-noise ratio. At some point there aren’t enough photons to give you sufficient information to make a good image. With today’s technology that lower limit seems to be about 6 microns square. That’s why cramming in lots of megapixels in a small area gives diminishing returns. As an example, some of my nicest images I shot on a Nikon D1X – full frame but only 2.74 megapixels! I have 11×14″ prints from this camera that are stunning.

          Today for an APS-C sensor size the sweet spot is about 16-20 megapixels. For 35mm sensors, it’s about 20-30 megapixels. Those pixels are useful for two things – cropping or printing large. Anything over about 4 megapixels is wasted on images that you show on a computer. My iMac 27″ can only display 3.69 megapixels if the image is shown full-screen.

          Keep this in mind when checking out new cameras. If you don’t crop a lot or print larger than 11×14 on a regular basis, then the sensor size and number of megapixels should be way down the bottom on your list of criteria to evaluate new cameras.

          I hope this helps us keep an open mind.

          • I made two small errors – I meant to say the D1, not the D1X and the D1 was not full frame. It did have photosensors that were 11.8 microns square.

          • Well said, Brad. I hope many of those clamoring for more pixels will re-read what you’ve just posted and believe it. If they’re so intent on scoring in the pixel war with their buddies, they should save money and invest in that new cellphone that’s touting 40+ megapixels. They key for the rest of us is, balance, moderation, and understanding the science of how sensors work.

          • Brad,

            A slight correction, if I may. The normal 35mm cine frame is 24x18mm. This is not the same, then, as Barnack’s adaptation for his development of the Leica. He knew that the cine film of its day was very good, but still thought the 24×18 frame too small, so he doubled this to what we know today, and only in digital is it referred to as full frame. In fact, Barnacks adoption of the double frame size for his 35mm film led to film often being sold under the description of Leica film.

          • And above all, the cine frame is PORTRAIT, not LANDSCAPE on a film used horizontally, in a photo camera, so not quite as suited to photography as to film.

            And as the 35mm film format itself was used and widely available, He, in His infinite wisdom just defined the FF size to 24x36mm.

            Why is FF still relevant today? In my opinion the only argument is the use of native focal lenghts of vintage lenses. The modern glass is at least as good, but sometimes lacks the special caracter (flaws???) we want. And some, like me love to use manual focus!

            If only there were manual focus lenses around, built for APS-C or MFT sensors, from the major players.

          • Frank,

            Actually, there are two sources: Olympus Pen F lenses are ideally suited to the APS-C format, and the Pentax 110 series of lenses work with 4/3rds sensors which have virtually the same dimensions as the 110 film frame.

            An adaptor exists for the Pen F lenses to Sony Nex, and surprisingly one for Pentax 110 lenses to 4/3rds and which has a built in aperture..

            I say surprisingly for the Pentax lenses, I have a set, because the aperture is set in the body not on the camera lens. Off the body as the lens does not have a built in aperture, it is fixed at f2.8.

            I’ve used the Pentax 110 lenses on my Nex 5N and unsurprisingly there is image fall off at the edges. Otherwise, even at f2.8 they are very sharp.

            Now a proper digital camera based on the tiny Pentax 110 SLR would be something.

        • Mich, That’s pretty funny.

          • T.i.c…

        • Michiel, I agree with part of what you’re saying, but the semantics are a little imprecise. I think a lot of the responders in this thread are using “image” and “print” interchangeably, and that’s wrong. One can take a nice picture (composition, focus, use of light, etc.) with a smartphone. If the only place that image is going to be used is on a forum, email or website, it’s sufficient. I shoot MF film (67) and six primes. I print and sell very large prints — 3×4, 4×6, up to 5×10 FEET — for fireplace/boardroom placements. I carry a 40+ lb pack in back country, not because I “like” the weight, but because the gear produces better product. The closest FF camera (D800E) still falls just a bit short when looking at its 36″x48″ print beside one done by my MF. I envy some of the features of the little FF systems, but until they match or surpass the output I’m getting, it’s like admiring a Miata but knowing you need a 4Runner. You and I both know that it’s “horses for courses.” Needs dictate choices. The APS-C and M4/3 crowd obviously can shoot good images, and those are perfectly suited to their applications.

          • Whilst my comment was t.i.c. (I mean, who doesn’t know full frame is better than any other format? Really…), I have to disagree with you. Slightly. On a good, precise amd well calibrated screen the difference in formats is visible, though maybe not to an enormous extent, given the impressive quality of top cameras in APS-C and MFT.

            But if I can see the difference (in sheer image quality, and other aspects) on my good quality 15″ screen of images from the D700 I had, and the D800 I have now, so can others I imagine. I don’t print a lot, maybe I should do that more, and then possibly the differences would be greater.

            The larger the sensor (all else being equal), the greater the perceived depth and detail of the image. I don’t think it gets more complicated than that (leaving organic sensor technology out of the equation for the moment).

            The “FACT” mention was a reference to opinions voiced here more than often. You can’t dispute it, it’s not an opinion, it’s fact. Something about (Greek?) philosophers and the non-existence of absolute truth springs to mind.

          • @Lajo: My reading leaves a lot to be desired. I agree with you, mostly.

            I’m not a professional, still use film (Tri-X) a lot with my older Nikon slr’s, which gets developed and scanned professionally. Good results but more importantly, being an old guy, 35mm is the way my visual mind thinks. I don’t need a D800, but I like it. Moving “down” to APS-C or MFT would take a lot of mental adjustment… 😉

          • Pretty good odds I’ve got you in years. Maybe that’s why we have a different perspective on IQ than the “kids” on here.

          • I’m on your side. I also hope my comments about what becomes apparent with printing registers with those posting here. If the largest print they demand is an 8×10 celebratory memento from their South Dakota vacation, they should all save their money and purchase a good P/S. Buying anything greater will just be for show and personal satisfaction. With 99.9% of the public, most images they look at get a glance and then are forgotten. If that’s via email or web sites, their photography interests can be met inexpensively and with small, light cameras. Again, horses for courses.

          • Agreed. If you want everything in your picture razor sharp and want a portable slr feel, get an OMD; really great image quality and a lovely camera.

            On the other hand, I saw (accidental?) depth in one of my street pictures recently, 35mm lens with Tri-X I think, maybe f2.8 or 2.0, that was really surprising. It probably had a lot to do with the combination of dusk and street lamps that had just come on.

            As for age… Well, 61 here… 😉

          • Midway between you and Ansel Adams.

          • uhmm…maybe someone who shoots medium format?

          • People who need to print large (30″x40″ and up) get better output using larger gear. Compare actual prints made from originals produced by M43, ASP-C, “full frame”, MF-D, etc., and it’s clear why some choose to buy and use more substantial bodies and lenses. The current enthusiasm for the little palm-sized camera bodies is driven by lower costs, greater convenience, and less effort. Maybe some “gadgetry genes” as well. There are no “best” cameras: use what you like, what you need, what serves your purpose. If that happens to be emails, magazine illustrations, and blogs, terrific.

        • no FF is not required to produce really good image Michiel…medium format is!
          What your tiny FF sensor can do? You really need spend your money on the MF!
          Not necessary? FF is adequate? So is APSC and m43 for most people!

          • No Kecaj, you misunderstood me. Full frame is really the only way to produce a decent image, and that’s FACT. Forget about MF, it’s wortess. Forgst about the Mickey Mouse sensors too!

          • What was the original post about?
            1 The only way to produce a really good image is to see it in the first place.
            2 the best camera to do that with is the one you happen to have with you at the time.
            It is no good having a Ff outfit if it is too heavy to carry.
            From experience my old hasselblad H1 and 16mb back (too heavy now for me) produced much better images than my 24mb FF Nikon (which I sold), as did my Sigma Dp3.
            Personally I cannot afford a lightweight Alpa and 80mb back or the lenses for the ultimate perfection and if I was not specifically going out to make images would be reluctant to carry that sort of kit just in case. But to use a camera like that you need to understand a bit more than aperture priority auto ISO autofocus.
            There is nothing magical about a Ff digital camera, the lenses maybe, but rather than a 864sq mm (36×24) sensor let’s have a 900sq mm 30×30 or larger square sensor in the same or slightly smaller body size.

          • Martin,

            A square sensor is an interesting concept. As you, coming from 6×6 in my Rollei and Mamiya I am used to the 6×6 format.

            Your suggestion of a sensor 30×30 wouldn’t require any new lenses as the imaging circle of all current 35mm camera lenses would cover, so overcoming a major problem that going your suggested sensor would would bring if it were any larger.

            I personally believe the disadvantages a square sensor would have in a digital camera would be the same as the film cameras. The majority of images benefit from being in portrait or landscape format. Few images actually work as true squares.

            So the 6×6 neg wasn’t used to its full capacity as cropping to a suitable image format usually was close to 6×4.5, hence the popularity of that format, and it gave 3 or 4 additional exposures per roll. However, using a 6×6 slr or tlr was an excellent experience, and this is where the advantage of the square format shone through: shooting square the camera was always held in the same position, but later in the darkroom one was able to crop to portrait or landscape at will. Doing this digitally will result in loss of valuable resolution, and taking the similar 6.45 crop as a guide the loss is in the region of 33%.

            Unless I’ve missed something in your thinking, what would you say the advantage of a square sensor would be in imaging terms?

          • Ooops, loss is 25% of the original image size, not 33%.

          • I currently have two digital cameras that will crop in the viewfinder to 1:1 and use that format most. My sigma is often cropped in pp to 1:1 or 5:4. Yes I used 5:4 6:6 and for a time 6:45 and currently have but hardly use a 6:7 (all film) but the h1 digital was 1:1. I also use the OMD-5 like a TLR ( it is strange not being reversed L-R)
            Advantages – I like the format – it is a better fit than 3:2 to any lens – you can get a bigger sensor in the same camera body – and most 3:2 cameras are designed for landscape shooting with portrait being uncomfortable or you add to the bulk and weight with battery grips. Often lazy horizontal photography is the result.
            But 3:2 is so often cropped to 6:45 or 5:4 so a ff 3:2 sensor also wastes pixels.
            Aesthetically a 1:1 gives the opportunity to create space round the subject in a way that I find more difficult with 3:2.

          • Terry. Just to clarify if you have a camera and lens for a 3:2 format the diameter is sq rt (no symbol on iPad) of 13, just over 3.6. The maximum sq within that radius would be 2.55×2.55 ie area 6.5 sq units against 6 for the 3:2, some 8% bigger allowing either more pixels or larger size (why the phase 1 backs were so good)
            Just to bring it back to Fuji – I have the xPro and use it 1:1 so yes as constructed I forgo some pixels. Would I get the xt? It would have to replace the Omd5 as my ‘slr’ style camera but it has the folding screen and scores on visual appeal so if money was no object both! Is my fuji 50 1:4 better than my pan leica summilux 50 1.4 in continued real use – I suspect they are different, certainly the fuji feels more robust, I will have to test. I suppose I would say to Olympus the Pen Ep5 was a disappointment not having an inbuilt viewfinder, had it done so I may have considered that more, although aperture ring and shutter etc dials are missing. But the fuji lens offer was amazing, not only two lenses for £40, but 100 cash back on another, so in all around the same cost as the xt body will be.

45. In the UK the XT1 is £1400 with its zoom lens. Currently the X-Pro 1 is £900 with the 18mm and either 27mm pancake, 35mm or 60mm. You cant explain that.

    • Try this explanation: The X-Pro 1 hasn’t sold as well as expected and will probably be replaced by a newer model soon. The price of the X-Pro 1 has come down a lot since launch as Fuji have lots of bodies left and are reducing the margins in an effort to sell them.

      • With all the firmware upgrades Fuji keep pumping out, and with its hybrid viewfinder, I just think the xpro 1 is way better value for money. Plus those Fuji primes……

    • Sounds like a good way to get two primes and a back up rangefinder style camera cheap 😉

46. It has lost the discreetness of my x-pro1 which is a shame. A piece of black masking tape on the ‘pentaprism’ and the ‘x-t1’ would be my first modification! It looks to me like the top end Contax Slrs of the 1990s, well designed and functional; and the top plate is similar to my Nikon FA. But any move away from repeated button pressing just to change shutter speed, ISO or aperture is welcome. As I recall a Fuji was the first SLR I ever held as a young teenager when the local camera shop had one in the early 1960s, so yes I would like to try this.

47. The one thing missing from all these guys, other than Sony for medium to tele lenses, is the ability to use a whole range of legacy lenses at their intended focal lengths.

    It will take years for Olympus or Fuji to develop the range that you get from combining Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc… the way you can come painfully close to doing with the Sony A7/A7R.

    I really wish Fuji had grown some slightly larger balls, to borrow Steve’s phrase, and produced a full-frame Trans sensor body.

    Hopefully, the above gripe is short-term only, and soon enough there will be a slew of lenses to play with on these bodies and the paradigm will have fully shifted to acknowledge that you can get all the depth of field you want from an APS-C sensor, while enjoying the more compact sensors that come from having a shorter flange distance and a smaller sensor!!

    Or Sony can just step it up and make sure that all Leica lenses work as well on their A mirror less bodies as they do on an M! This could probably be accomplish with a future firmware fix!

48. Will be interesting to see how the real-world size with lens turns out: as teeny as the Olympus OM, or more like the Sony A7? (not including auxiliary grips and battery holders)

    • It’s just a little bit smaller than the X-Pro1, so not teeny. With that lovely battery grip it gets to more D300 like; a mansized camera, not for the “lugging DSLR’s around” whiners.

49. I wish this is full frame, otherwise no point to get this while i have got XE1

50. This is what I had hoped the Nikon Df would have been.

    • Right you are!

      This camera impresses me (as far as I can gather from the sparse reports) in that it meets my craving for a digital camera that operates like my beloved folm gear. I used manual M lenses on the X-E1, and it was good,but not perfect.

      This might be it though…..

    • You can’t have a Nikon DF this size without removing the mirror box and making a new mount with new lenses for mirrorless. The Nikon DF is a dslr with a full frame sensor. There are compromises with anything we purchase.

      • That is not necessarily true. I was hoping Nikon would have dropped the rear LCD and designed thinner sensor electronics.

        I was hoping Nikon could have shaved off a cm and stunned the world with an F-mount A7 competitor.

        • Then everyone would have complained that they dropped the lcd. They made the camera as small as feasibly possible with today’s technology. You can’t have an F mount A7 size camera. The F lenses are not designed to be that close to the sensor, and the mirror, focusing module etc, take up room. Please be realistic!

          • It’s not just the thickness of the camera. Count the number of buttons on each camera and tell me which one you’d rather grab. For me it’s the X-T1.

          • To each his own Brad. They are very different cameras. They only look similar because they look retro. I have an X100 and a DF and they are very different cameras. The DF beats it in IQ but is much larger. They are both very good cameras. I would never sell either one.

          • Quote “It’s not just the thickness of the camera. Count the number of buttons on each camera and tell me which one you’d rather grab. For me it’s the X-T1.”

            Exactly my point, the Nikon is just another ‘classic’ DSLR camouflaged as a ‘pure photography’ machine. But it has the same controls, buttons and thingamagics as any other old soap bar DSLR.

            The X-T1 (like it or not, it’s everyone’s preference), gets much closer to what I want from a camera. Physical controls, dials as of old. No menu-diving for me please.

            Can’t help it, I just like this camera

          • Frank, it clearly has a visual appeal that hits us older guys right in the heart. I’ve been wrestling with what I might try transitioning to from a Pentax 67ii film camera. I’ve handled the X-Pro1 and the D610 and I’m convinced I want something a little bigger and more substantial. There’s no way of knowing how this new little Fuji will perform, but I’ll fall asleep tonight imagining that form factor and layout up-sized more like a D800. I know that size fits my hands and would balance with a 55 mm Otus or 70-200 zoom. Give me 30-36 mps and a contemporary engine and I think I could make the switch.

      • Nikon could make a mirrorless camera incorporating a standard adapter well intigrated into the design to have the typical Nikon F mount to image plane distance yet allow any other lens to be mounted when the adapter is removed. I would personally love to use my old Zeiss/Contax lenses on a Nikon full frame in mostly manual. An electronic focus assist like Fuji’s would be a big plus too.

        • They could but will they? I guess, not until they feel the need to do so. Camera sales have gone down, but I think that they are still selling too many dslr’s for this to happen.

        • So why don’t you just get an A7 and use Nikon and your old Zeiss/Contax glass with that?

    • Interesting that the main talk here has been how good the EVF is- bright, high resolution, refresh rate. In essence, the high point of the new Fuji from a discussion standpoint is how close the EVF comes to acting like real reflex viewing.

      And then we drag in the Df for some reason and say the Df wishes it could be like this. If only the Df viewing had a faster refresh rate, or less tearing, or more resolution! If only the Df had a fake prism finder instead of a real one! If only the Df could only have been a smaller format APS with less low light capability.

      There is a sort of strange compulsion among some interweb posters to discuss a new consumer product in terms of some other consumer product. This seems rather gratuitous.

      • They do it either because they are trying to justify their purchase, or they wished the features of the competing brand is in the product they are loyal to.

        It always happens without fail.

51. EVF looks great, but it doesn’t seem really any larger than the 4:3 ration E-M1 EVF, at least from the size overlays on DPR. Don’t think you’d really tell that much difference between them in terms of size.

    The 90 degree rotation is pretty clever though!

52. From everything I’ve read, including the press release, this should shoot exactly like the X-E2…. But in a stronger body, with a better EVF….. Without some WR primes I’m not sure I’m interested.

    • So the results – the photos – should be the same as the XE2.
      So… if you like the XE2’s images, great. If not, then this is not going to be any different.

    • It does continous AF much better tho, read rico’s hands on at fujirumours.com

      • Or rather tracking AF

53. The dpreview preview is up and he raves on and on about how awesome the evf is, also in 2 other initial hands on I read they all mentioned how great the evf is because of the size/resolution/magnification/speed. Can’t wait to get my hands on one of these.

    • Yes, but in dpreview’s of the A7, which review is coming in for a lot of stick for its alleged anti-Sony bias, they didn’t use such effusive language about the A7’s superb EVF. Both have the same resolution, although the Fuji is marginally larger with a magnification of .77 to the A7’s .71, but this is only 12% larger, not much to write home about.

      • The A7’s EVF is pretty bad in terms of blockyness, building of the image when moving the camera and general glittering.

        • Michiel,

          I always like to know if commentators own the kit they comment on. If not, what is the value of anything they say?

          If you do, then I think you need to qualify this comment. I don’t experience the issues you relate. I don’t recognise the term blockyness, unless you are referring the refresh rate to which all EVF’s are prone in very low light levels. But this isn’t unique to the A7. And I would guess this Fuji will suffer the same issues.

          Just testing my A7 now in low level daylight indoors at home, ISO 100, f2.8, 1/8 sec, I can pan with no ill effects whatsoever. No shimmering effect, and no problems with refresh rate. Now, indoors at night from the illumination from a 125 watt bulb, I agree refresh rate is quite noticeable when I pan the camera, but unless one is trying to shoot video under these circumstances it isn’t an issue when holding the camera still.

          • Terry,

            I’ve tried the A7 (and the Fuji’s, and the OMD’s) numerous times, out of curiosity and interest, and decided I didn’t want to own any of them. Maybe you think I should have bought them to eventually come to the same conclusion?

            I’ll do the same with the X-T1; very interesting and tempting camera, and apparently the EVF is better than all those mentioned before. We’ll see.

            Yes, refresh rate. “When holding the camera still.”. So that’s why it’s called a still camera! I’m used to pretty good viewfinders that allow me to move the camera (it doesn’t become a movie camera) without annoying side effects. I’m probably spoiled.

          • Unless you use ANY camera for a least a month or so you can’t have a complete picture of it usefulness or functionality. Snap judgments are just not useful. True knowledge of anything requires time.

          • Unfortunately I don’t have the unlimited means required to do that. I tried several times; no snap judgments here. EVF’s, no thank you.

          • This is exactly why you shouldn’t pay any attention to reviewers. Mostly use it for less than a month. I definietly wouldn’t pay any attention to DPreview as they don’t use the cameras exclusively for a month. Most bloggers are probably fanboys, so I don’t pay attention to them either.

            So who should we read reviews from?

          • Hi, Michiel.

            Thanks for taking the time to reply.

            No, I don’t think you should have bought them, or any camera come to that, that you are not happy with a particular aspect of its performance. That would be silly.

            Do I read into your comments that you don’t actually get on with any EVF, and in your last sentence, para.3, you are in fact referring either to an slr or direct vision optical viewfinder, a la true range finder camera?

            If indeed it IS an EVF to which you refer, which one is it, out of interest?

          • Hi Terry,

            I have actually not yet found an EVF that I really liked, and I was sufficiently interested in the latest spate of interesting new cameras from Fuji, Olympus and Sony to want to try them all, several times.

            On moving the camera as one does when composing a shot I can see the building up; high contrast lines appear glittery. All to my eye. The X-Pro1 is nice, but its EVF is coarser than f.i. Olympus.

            “My” viewfinders are the D800 (big and reasonably bright, useable for manual focusing), Nikon’s compact F’s and the F2AS (ahh…), and the Contax RTSIII (ahh again; very good). Those are my points of reference.

            I don’t need a viewfinder to show me the supposedly final result, nor histograms, just a clear preferably 100% view of the shot, basic exposure information and good manual and auto focusing. I don’t do much chimping.

            I’m a simple guy.

          • Actually, whereas the A7 and E-M1 have a faster refresh rate (60FPS) in the light, they both drop down to 30FPS in low-light. The X-T1, however, maintains a constant 54FPS.

            This, bundled with the 0.005s response time, could really make this a noticeably better EVF. That’s just on paper though, who knows how substantial the improvement over the E-M1 is

          • Kidklmx,

            The proof of the pudding is in the cooking as we say in the UK. So we will have to reserve judgment until the reviewers have had an opportunity to get their hands on it.

            On paper, the X-T1 looks superior. If this proves to be the case, could this be down to its being easier to to with the much smaller APS-C sensor than with a FF? Interesting times.

          • Well that’s why I put in that last sentence 🙂

            And no, the EVF resfresh rate doesn’t have anything to do with sensor size. I mean, E-M1 behaves the same way and that’s only 4/3ds sized. I think it’s just that they adjust the shutter speed when there’s less light available, and so at a certain point they have to get down to 30FPS.

          • I own the A7 and can say that the EVF is fine for me – no issues at all.

            And I say that as someone who is spoiled by the D700’s big, bright optical viewfinder.

        • The EVF on the A7 is NOT bad. I think you are just trolling.

          • Oh?

          • I agree, the A7 viewfinder is stunning. From my experience on a par with the E-M1 but with better color reproduction and better dynamic range.

          • Agreed. The A7 EVF looks more natural in color rendition than the E-M1. Fuji has a checkered past with its EVF tech – anyone recall how the whole display would lock when acquiring focus. The X-T1 looks like a different beast though and it looks like maybe Fuji has made the jump to top of class.

            More interesting are the reports about how good the predictive AF tracking is at 8fps.

54. I’m glad the price is reasonable. I’m dying to find out how it compares to the x100s in terms of AF.

    My next system camera will be either this or the omd-em1. If this one can come close in speed to the olympus then I will stick with Fuji.

    • So far the few videos I’ve seen demonstrating AF and more specifically AF with Tracking look really promising. Come on Steve we’re impatiently waiting for a review.

55. Wonder how it will compare with em1 auto foucs?

56. I really hope for Fuji’s sake that this is as good as it ‘looks’.
    I like the manual controls including metering and bracketing etc.
    EFV looks very Nikon being so round.
    A functional looking camera.

57. Looks promising, but no pre-order for me — will wait to see what The Huff thinks. It’s the little things that count, and Fuji has a checkered little-things track record. Things I’m especially curious to know:

    — How loud is the shutter?
    — Looks like there’s a lock button on the ISO dial; can it be left unlocked (a la E-M 1 mode dial) or do you have to push it every time? ISO is a primary control now, but many camera mfrs still make it hard to change.
    — Looks as if it would be easy to change the exposure compensation dial by accident; is it a problem?
    — How well do the focusing aids work with adapted lenses?

    • Agreed. In my experience, Fuji cameras (x100/x100s) can be very buggy. However, in their defense they do continue to support their cameras with firmware updates unlike Sony.

      • Have had an x100s for several months…a fabulous shoot and results. Have not experienced any of the referenced “buggy” issues. What are we talking about?

        • Same here. No bugs to speak of on my x100s. Although I do wish the AF was faster.

    • JL, just read in another site about this one, DPR, they say you just need to push the ISO lock button when moving out from the Auto position and they think the exposure dial is way too stiff for they liking. So I guess these two wont be a major issue for you..

58. Love the dials! Might have to finally sell my E-M5!

Comments are closed.