Not that I have the money for it, of course. Well, there's always the OM-D.
For Fujifilm, the fixed-lens retro-styled FinePix X100 camera turned out to be a huge and rather unexpected success. It was only a matter of time to see the company to bank on its popularity and release an interchangeable lens system loosely based on this model. Yet this CSC is no rehash, as it features a new 16Mp sensor design …
Do looks really matter? It has a feel quite unlike every other interchangeable lens camera on the market — despite the focussing issues there's something timeless to it. The results are excellent too. I guess the only downside is that the unique sensor array has led to poor third-party software support so far. Lightroom now has some support but the conversion leaves a lot to be desired versus the in-camera JPEG writer. Also the bundled software, SilkyPix, is quite awful from a usability point of view.
Summary: I love mine to pieces, though post-processing options are currently limited.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
You touch only briefly on the lenses. They are exceptionally good - Leica quality, both optically and mechanically, at a fraction of the price, and far superior to most lenses from the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony or Olympus, even much higher priced ones like the Canon 50mm f/1.2L.
Fuji make the lenses for Hasselblad and they clearly pulled out all the stops to make XF a superlative lens system. I have a Leica M9 with some Leica's best (50mm Summilux ASPH, 90mm Apo Summicron ASPH and 28mm Elmarit ASPH), the M9 is clearly superior to the X100 I carry as my jacket pocket camera, but in the same class as the X-Pro1.
The only caveat is that this is a big camera for a mirror less CSC, the same size as the Leica M9.
While I haven't yet had a chance to try the Fuji lenses, and the Leica lenses are far beyond my reach, financially speaking, you really shouldn't put Olympus lenses in the same basket as the others. I shoot Nikon now, mostly due to my penchant for enjoying pictures of black cats in coal mines (and the occasional band in a dimly lit club, though the mines are usually at least three stops brighter), but oh those Zuiko Digital lenses. The good ones (i.e. not the kit zooms) defecate all over Canon's L offerings, after dumping a substantial, erm, dump, on Nikon's top of the line glass. If the XF lenses are even close to ZD, well then, I reckon the missus might just scalp me in the near future.
There simply isn't another UWA lens that you can dream of affording that equals the Oly 7-14mm, and the 50-200mm zoom is like-wise amazing. Even using the 1.4x tele extender, I took pictures with that at the Melbourne Grand Prix this year that were, simply, professional calibre, using only my ancient E-3. Too bad the bodies aren't up to the lenses...but they make it very hard to ditch the E-series and buy a Nikon or Canon...
Fujifim seem capable of making an excellent camera. I know that Kodak didn't try as hard in the 60s, 70s and 80s as Fuji to get into the SLR and professional camera markets, but it's still a shame to see a company like Kodak, which once had one of the most recognisable brands, end up the way it has. Well done Fujifilm.
"Raw files take close to ten seconds to be fully recorded on the card."
To me that is a disgusting lack of performance in a £1299 camera. Seriously, who at these companies signs shit like that off as being good enough? Where is their pride in what they have made? Things like this, and Fuji aren't the only ones guilty of it, make it seem like modern engineers get 3/4 of the way to the final product then just go attention deficit and say "fuck it, let's move onto something new". I wouldn't have the stones to send out something that was so glaringly lacking in an area for which there is just no excuse for it. It's unprofessional.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022