Fuji X-T1 review

[barryfitzgerald]

People should remember that 35mm format film cameras varied in price from about $200 to $2000 (excluding more expensive exotica like the Leica R) with mid-range models like the F100 and EOS-3 at about $1000, and this was nothing to do with sensor cost or performance, because they could be loaded with the same "sensors". The same is true in digital too, with camera in the same format varying in price greatly (as much as a thousand dollars for APS-C and for 4/3" format, and many thousands of dollars in the case of 35mm format.)  The reason is obvious: both the cost and the market value of a high quality ILC depend on far more than the sensor.  So I see a clear market for paying a premium of maybe a $1000 or even more for higher quality in other aspects of the body, and so it does not make sense to expect that the best models in one format must cost less than the lowest spec models in a larger format if that "bigger, cheaper" model is inferior is respects like build quality, water resistance, frame rate, presence and quality of an eye-elvel VF (OV or EVF), AF speed and accuracy, ergonomic advantages like dual control dials, etc.

The market value of an ILC body is also affected by extrinsic "system" factors like the quality of suitable lenses available for the body: Nikon and Canon have stopped offering any new lenses beyond slow zooms (f/5.6 at the long end) for DX and EF-S format bodies (perhaps deliberately "starving" those systems to push enthusiasts towards 35mm format) whereas Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm continue to expand their higher level lens offerings (f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, various primes) for their smaller-than-35mm format bodies, adding value to those bodies.

In ye 35mm film days you paid for build, features/spec such as bigger viewfinder, more controls higher shutter speed/flash sync, better AF etc etc.
You get exactly the same IQ which was the film and the lens used. Even a cheap budget film SLR could deliver results if you used a decent lens and film. In todays market makers do the same thing they chop stuff off the lower end bodies (esp Nikon) and gradually up-sell people to higher end bodies with more "bits" that they might or might not really need.

I don't think it's realistic to expect that a smaller sensor format can command premium prices at the full frame entry level. Marketing wise it's a heck of a lot easier for Canikon to push users to FF, than it will be to sell the EM-1 to people. I'm sure it has it's fans but for newer buyers I'm pretty sure it's not an easy sell at all.

In the same way I think bar a 7dMkII... APS-C days of getting well over £1000 for a pro (or near pro) level body are coming to an end, bar maybe some sports/wildlife shooters it's a non starter really. I doubt you'll see another high end crop body from Canon after that. And if you do it will cost less. Micro 4/3 is basically tied into the ever diminishing circle in the same way 4/3 was. It's not cheaper than APS-C (and FF is coming down in price) As the market matures over time I expect FF to invade the £999 mark.

At that point micro 4/3 is going to be in the same sticky situation normal 4/3 was. As far as the market is concerned bigger sensor = better

All the reviews in the world can tell people "smaller is better" and they're not really buying into it. I don't really need smaller, but I'd take a look at cheaper. Money talks..size doesn't, not much

[Telecaster]

At that point micro 4/3 is going to be in the same sticky situation normal 4/3 was. As far as the market is concerned bigger sensor = better

All the reviews in the world can tell people "smaller is better" and they're not really buying into it. I don't really need smaller, but I'd take a look at cheaper. Money talks..size doesn't, not much

Right. That's why we're all still taking photos with large format view cameras.

Your evaluation of "the market" is incredibly parochial. Folks in the US and Europe are more inclined to buy stuff that looks like "what the pros use." In much of the world this doesn't hold...the photo market is more wide open. IMO history is pretty clear on this: the long-term trend is towards smaller formats and smaller gear. Canikon may have a near duopolistic grip on the photo market right now, but like all things this won't last. It's too stagnant and thus ripe for disruption. The sooner the better, I say.

-Dave-

[barryfitzgerald]

Right. That's why we're all still taking photos with large format view cameras.

Your evaluation of "the market" is incredibly parochial. Folks in the US and Europe are more inclined to buy stuff that looks like "what the pros use." In much of the world this doesn't hold...the photo market is more wide open. IMO history is pretty clear on this: the long-term trend is towards smaller formats and smaller gear. Canikon may have a near duopolistic grip on the photo market right now, but like all things this won't last. It's too stagnant and thus ripe for disruption. The sooner the better, I say.

-Dave-

This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly

I'm not hearing "most" DSLR  users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.
But then you're average D7100 or 70d user isn't nearly as bogged down, nor evidently are 6d FF users carting a monster camera around either


Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)
Well even FF doesn't have to be that big

Size isn't what people are talking about, and looking at some of the lenses so far on ILC models even APS-C ones they have no size advantage at all, and seem to suffer from more optical problems (vignetting, distortion etc) than normal DSLR lenses. Smaller is better? Really...

[Isaac]

Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)

"The raven chides blackness."

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Three monks decide to perform a retreat of absolute silence.
They sit meditating with only one candle lighting the room,
as a gust of wind suddenly blows out the light.

The youngest and less experienced of the three at a sudden says:
"The wind has blown out the candle".

His older monk brother says to him:
"Shhht! No speaking !"

Suddenly the oldest laughs out:
"Hahahahaha - I am the only one who said nothing ...."

 

Cheers
~Chris

[Rob C]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQcGkzXmPjY&list=RD029DkcQ09h2Vo


Watch, think Fellini and format worries shrink to zero.

For the zillionth time, the real, horridly unavoidable truth about imagery and imagination, folks, is that it's not about nuts and bolts.

Rob C

[Telecaster]

This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another

You mistake me for an advocate. You are wrong. I use a wide variety of gear in various formats and sizes. I have no fanboy interest in any particular brand or format "winning" some illusory war. I'm merely pointing out what the long-term trend in both image format and gear size has been. I see no reason why the trend won't continue until we run up against fundamental barriers to further format miniaturization. I suspect we've already reached the point where further gear-size reduction would be counterproductive...but we'll see.

The interchangeable lens camera market is small compared to the smartphone market. The latter is where interesting things are happening tech-wise regarding both sensors and optics. Imagine an iPhone or Galaxy with a high-speed multi-focal-length liquid lens, 60mp (or greater) sensor and advanced Lytro-type selective focus capability. I'd rather be Apple or Samsung than CaNikon, etc. when that or something similar appears.

-Dave-

[BJL]

I suspect we've already reached the point where further gear-size reduction would be counterproductive...but we'll see.

I partly agree on that: once the sensor is about "APS-C" size or smaller (and maybe up to about 35mm size), and the device is just a camera (not also  phone-computer-PDA), the sensor size no longer sets the lower viable limit on the size of the body. Instead, the minimum good size for a body depends on what the user wants in the way of rear screen size, EVF or OVF, enough control knobs and buttons of sufficient size and spacing, batter capacity, etc.  The last big opportunity for body downsizing is removal of the mirror/prism components of an SLR VF.

That leaves lens downsizing, and even this is limited by the extent that the artistic distortion of reality by strong OOF effects is desired, and how much the user wants in the way of "low light/high shutter speed" performance.  But somehow, lens size differences between formats get overlooked or denied by many people who seem to  believe that the advantages of a larger format can be achieved with just a larger sensor, whereas in fact most(*) of the advantages come from the combination of a larger sensor with a larger, heavier and/or more demanding lens design. Larger and heavier due to needing both longer focal length and greater entrance pupil diameter (focal length)/(aperture ratio) and thus bigger front elements if one wants better low-light performance; more demanding design to get higher angular resolution if one wishes to get an advantage of higher pixel counts in a larger sensor.


(*) One major exception: a larger sensor can give greater dynamic range and finer tonal gradations at equal FOV, equal DOF and equal image resolution just by using a longer exposure to gather more total light from the subject, without much need for a bigger or higher-precision lens design.

[bcooter]

This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly

..................................

Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)
Well even FF doesn't have to be that big

No.

Must be smaller isn't the driving force, just not be huge.

Huge is a problem.  Huge cost money and time in support and setup.  Huge is kind of crazy in a world of smart phones, but huge, we do huge.

The driving force for me and working is.

1.  Must produce a unique image, not generic in look, regardless of how much I do in post.  Better in, better out.

2.  Must be a system that's adaptable, which means for me that motion imagery is a plus and must be professional and not hobbled to move you to the next model.

3.  The camera should look and feel like quality.   I'm somewhat tired of plastic looking blobs and no I'm not nostalgic.

4.  The camera/system should have life to it.   the 18months electronic business cycle has grown tiresome.

5.  More innovation than just 9 more megapixels, or a little better focusing.

Size?

I carry a 68 lb. medium format case, a 40 lb. dslr case and my m43 case has now grown to 27 lbs.   My three RED 1 cases plus lenses, I dunno let's just say heavy.

that's just cameras, lenses and chargers, so small isn't the main factor.

What I like about m43 is it cross purposes and I like the little panasonic gh3 soon gh4 for video because nothing I know will produce a 4k file, not cost over $10,000 a body and have smooth stable autofocus in a small by cinema standards package.

What I like about the olympus still file is it's very good, I like an evf for a lot of continuous light work and it's very well built.  You have to get into leica territory to find anything that feels better in the hand.

The numbers say that m43 is in the minority in terms of overall camera sales.   So are REDs, so are Arri's and Leicas, so to me camera  sales numbers don't move me to buy, usually they move me the other direction.

But (and I've said this before) if the Full Frame sony A7 (not R) had the same still quality as my olympus the same motion quality as my panasonics, I'd have dumped m43 and gone to those right then. 

In regards to dslrs, I own them, carry them, use them, don't really like them, though will admit, there is very little a dslr can't do.

My Contax, the REDs, the Leica S2 and those are either very traditional and far from small. 

But as always I only can speak for myself, not others.

Though If I had my wish, I'd have all sensors the size of super 35 like a Epic Scarlet, just fatter on the short end, pl mounts that would manually and remotely autofocus, around a 24mpx still, a 4 to 6k motion image and all that looked like film, not plastic digital.

One lens set for both mediums.

4 xlr inputs and removable storage in one box, kind of like the gh4,  still tethering through ethernet like the 1dx cause it's rock stable and olympus would liscense their 5 axis stabilization for motion imagery, cause that's just crazy good.

But speaking for the majority, of course not, the majority is 5d3's or mobile phones.

But we all know it's what we do with a camera, is not just the camera.     

Most of this talk is meaningless anyway, because people are going to do what they want to do.

IMO

BC

[jjj]

This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly

I think the comment referencing large format was simply to show that the trend over time has been towards smaller cameras. And I don't recall folks insisting on smaller cameras either like you seem to suggest. But who wouldn't want a lighter camera if it can do the same job?

I'm not hearing "most" DSLR  users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.

Yet I've come across quite a few peeps who certainly like their 5Ds and L lenses, but find they are too big and bulky for carrying around comfortably all day. I tend to use my pocket camera in preference to my mine for walk around photography for that very reason. Not to mention it's bulk is not exactly discrete.
At my local camera store there has been a lot of interest in smaller cameras, some people have traded in their bigger camera kit, some have supplemented it.

[JV]

I'm not hearing "most" DSLR  users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.

I would probably disagree with this statement.

Being a frequent reader of Fuji forums I can assure you that there is a lot of interest in Fuji cameras from wedding photographers who already completely or partially switched from DSLRs to Fuji.

Besides cost obviously weight is one of the main considerations.  Carrying a 5dMkIII plus a bunch of lenses for a whole day is not everybody's idea of fun. 

[barryfitzgerald]

I would probably disagree with this statement.

Being a frequent reader of Fuji forums I can assure you that there is a lot of interest in Fuji cameras from wedding photographers who already completely or partially switched from DSLRs to Fuji.

Besides cost obviously weight is one of the main considerations.  Carrying a 5dMkIII plus a bunch of lenses for a whole day is not everybody's idea of fun. 

I shoot weddings. The Fuji offerings might have some potential, but right now they lack the flash system many shooters will need.
It's really not much to do with size. I'm already using APS-C and it's not bogging me down or big.

The point being not every DSLR is big, many are fairly compact.
The other issue is "too small" at which point we get compromises in handling and practical limitations

No huge demand around for really small cameras. I suspect part of the appeal of fuji is the tonality (which is good) and low light capability (as good as it gets for APS-C)
People making blanket statements about ILC models are out of the loop and not in touch with working photographers. I've no desire to have a big bulky camera, so I don't buy one. That doesn't mean I want a tiny camera either.

[hjulenissen]

I'm not hearing "most" DSLR  users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all.

I live at a place where regular people can afford DSLRs, and I am at a stage in life where my friends are marrying and/or have kids.

A large number of those people have bought Canon x00D cameras, or the Nikon equivalent (and to a lesser degree, m43) with a KIT lens, without being photo enthusiasts, they just want to capture moments from an eventful part of life with good quality. Or so they think, because in practice I am seeing that they leave their compact DSLR at home, and snap happily with their iPhone/Samsung/....

I am guessing that the number of units sold (multiplied by a moderate profit) to this demographic group is a key component in paying for the R&D that is needed to churn out the 5DmkIV, D900E, A9 and whatnot. And I see it as a "freak event" that so many people decide to spend $500 or $1000 on camera equipment. I don't expect most of these people to ever purchase expensive camera kit again, and I suspect that the next generation of 25-35 y.o. will not either. Thus things may return to the pre-2005 "normal" where the artistic uncle Joe had his big SLR camera used at family events, and the rest of us had relatively inexpensive gear. That must be a scary story for camera manufacturers.

-h

[John Rausch]

I could list maybe 15 Canon nnD or Rebels gathering dust, most with a telephoto fir soccer games, etc. You could be right.

[jjj]

Thus things may return to the pre-2005 "normal" where the artistic uncle Joe had his big SLR camera used at family events, and the rest of us had relatively inexpensive gear. That must be a scary story for camera manufacturers.

This has already happened once before. When compact, but still quite good 35mm cameras came out, SLR sales dropped dramatically as most people did not want/need a big camera. Phones have already the same thing to compact digital cameras as they are not only good enough [for most people], but can do more.
Everything being equal most people will opt for a smaller/lighter camera. And as most cameras are good enough for most people, a lighter camera is going to look increasingly attractive.

Obviously certain professional jobs will require more specialised kit which may be bulkier, but remember amateurs make up the overwhelming majority of camera purchasers.