The X-E2 is now $100 off at several stores. Check it out here at AmazonUS, BHphoto, Adorama and Pictureline. Adorama offers also 4% reward on any combination, while BHphoto only on the silver body at the moment.
_ _ _
It was a long wait, but it’s finally here: the X-E2 review at dpreview. It gained the “Gold Award” with an overall score of 80%. They say that “the X-E2 is a highly capable enthusiast-focused camera capable of producing excellent images. Direct control dials and plenty of customization make for an engaging shooting experience, and its output is impressive. Wi-Fi and in-camera Raw conversion make it easy to share images. It’s only really the lacklustre video that disappoints.”
56 Responses
I have one for sale in mint condition! +AndrewDieb
The X-E2 is a temptation to me; I have compared images of X-E2, X-T1, OM D EM1 and EM 5 from ephotozine. I think the images of X-E1 are slightly better than X-T1 about colors (brighter), noise (the X-T1 shows more patches in ISO 3200 and ISO 6400), and even the images of the X E-2 seems a bit more sharp (I don`t know which lenses were used in ephotozine in each test). Nevertheless, the X-T1 show. to my eyes, a better dynamic range than X-E2. I would like to get more images from different sources to compare the same cameras and check the observations I have found in ephotozine images.
You just need to rent one & actually use it, including shooting outside on sunny and cloudy days. Of the several cameras I have used, rented and/or bought, I found many things i’d read on the internet to either be false or other obvious problems not reported.
People feel free to write what they want on the internet about cameras based on their own agendas and many times apart from facts. Some even post-process images to either make them look worse or better, while claiming them to be ‘straight from camera’. I do not believe any thing any more until seen with my own eyes in person.
Great images are created by great photographers, NOT the camera. I look at my prints (16X20) at the 6-8 feet that people view in a gallery and I feel they stack up against most FF output. I can’t buy the fact that DSLRs pros used years ago produced worthless photos and only now we can get great DR yada yada yada. Why are we always slicing and dicing these stats??? BTW I consider MY X100 and above pro quality in the right hands. Will see this weekend what the XT1 will do. Just 2 cents
I’ve owned all of these cameras. You can’t possibly tell the image quality apart in real world use. There are perhaps some extreme edge cases where one camera does one slightly different thing. But overall, they all perform the same in the general case as far as noise, color response, etc. JPEG engines have been modified in each model, that is where you will notice some minor differences. But, it is not a change in the core imaging performance. That has remained consistent, which shouldn’t be a surprise. The sensor is hardly different between each model.
Odd, I feel I’ve gotten better image quality from my X-E2 vs my X-E1. Maybe I’m doing something wrong.
“It’s only really the lacklustre video that disappoints.”
Yup. And that was the reason that I bought the X-Pro1. I didn’t care about the video capabilities. Then I tried making motion pictures in black and white mode. Suddenly I had a camera that could rival the 5D.
There’s just a couple of things in video they need.
It can be done via a FW update and make the xe-2 and xt-1 overall better multipurpose cameras and appeal to a wider audience.
1. 24p,25p,50p. This is the biggest one. Easy fix
2. Allow manual.
3. Better codecs. Meaning more then one.
Done.
Agree video could be improved via firmware. They made the right decision to have some form of video as you never know when you need it. Poor quality video of your daughter’s first words is still priceless.
There are cameras meant for those special moments. The X cameras is not in that camera class and anyone purchasing one has already come to terms with this point. Let Fujifilm address the task of less lag and better focus on still images and forget about motion pictures. The X cameras are photographers’ cameras. It’s a drag having the movie firmware when the improvements could be put out elsewhere.
Then they shouldnt have video on it at all. If there are going to have it. atleast make it usable to people.
People outside of the states have a hard time using 30p and 60p, hence the need for 25 and 50. and while they are at it might as well add 24p just because.
i will complain about the video everytime its meantioned. I dont shoot video ever….why complain? because its on my camera…if i chose to shoot video, i want the highest quality this camera can produce.
Fuji having probably the worst video of any mirrorless camera is nothing to take pride in. My iphone takes better video. They are slowly improving things here and there. mostly things that should have been fixed before the cameras release. ths video thing is one of them things that just should be. I dont care about any purist crap. I take pictures. I need my stuff to work while im doing that. I need the IQ to be as high as possible. Same goes with video. some people like it. they need to fix it.
“Then they shouldnt have video on it at all.” That’s ridiculous. I very occasionally use the video function, and it’s certainly good enough for my use (recording my daughter doing silly things). I appreciate it having some form of video, even if it’s basic.
I think I am who is the video function is aimed at. People who don’t really care about video but would like it there just in case.
Fujinon has a rich history of video-specific glass so I too would like to see some expanded video functionality. But my real hope would be for a dedicated video camera which accepts X-mount glass. I’ve been tinkering with the thought of getting that nifty pocket-sized, black magic piece but reconsidered once I thought about having to buy into another system.
BTW, could the reason for (some of) the limited video options be due to heat concerns?? I recall Sony SLT/NEX users up in arms b/c of those issues a couple years back…
Not sure that I’d agree with Alejandro about x-E1 being better than X-T1. I own the X100S, X-E2 and the X-T1… Had the X-E1 prior… I honestly, think the image quality between all of them are pretty much equal personally.
A friendly tip: You should click “reply” under a comment when you are responding within its context. It helps people follow what you’re talking about and honestly, it sometimes comes off a bit rude when you disregard that option, like talking about someone who is standing right by you, but, not acknowledging them as present.
I’ll keep that in mind. Not sure I agree about the rude part though. Thanks.
BTW: I have noticed within certain newsreaders on my iPad, that replying is often a bit different (and cumbersome) that in the web version (which I am using now).
Definitely don’t agree with the rude part either. Odd observation.
+1 or perhaps my skin has thickened since my days on DPR…just visited it today for the first time in 3-months, and only to read the review. But I appreciate what Zachery is saying…in general I think most that post on this board play fair
I disagree. I own the X-E1 and never had an issue with the ‘waxy’ effect on skin until I purchased the X-T1 where now I understand what everyone is harkin’ on about. In my opinion, the noise suppression and skin smoothing (it appears to be area specific) is more aggressive in the X-T1 than the X-E1.
Interesting. I haven’t noticed that. But I don’t have my X-E1 anymore to compare. I shoot raw mainly, so (in theory) NR shouldn’t come into play.
I always shoot RAW+JPG on my Fuji devices as sometimes the JPG colour is just better and for others I need the RAW. Until Adobe release RAW support for the X-T1, I only have the JPG to view and so it was easy for me to notice something wasn’t quite right and then do some comparisons.
Yea. That makes sense. I have been using the RC ACR to view my x-T1 files. To my eye, they look very similar to the X-E2 and X100S raw files. However, I will admit, I haven’t done any serious scrutiny, and just going by initial gut feel. There certainly could be something I’m missing. Time will tell. Thanks!
Yes, I noticed that too.
Having shot people at ISO 3200 in low light with the X-E1 and X100S I look forward to comparing the results with the X-T1, since I always found the Fuji NR a bit on the heavy side in high ISO jpegs (at NR 0). I generally avoid ISOs higher than 3200 because of that.
I looked at the X-E2 DPReview jpeg example at ISO 6400 and did not find it too bad. Until I have seen an example showing something else, I will assume that the X-T1 shot at ISO 3200 would be better, and so good enough for my use. If not, turning the NR down or using raw would be the solution, albeit not as convenient.
I have now tested with the X-T1 and at ISO 3200 skintones are indeed good enough imo, while at ISO 6400 they look a bit “waxy” at least in my low light test.
The key is enthusiast-focused –
Yes super IQ – but lacks many features for beginners and new users –
So yes Fuji has done well to tailor to the Purists and advanced users –
For Fuji to really make the X-E2 and X-T1 better is – In Body Stabilization – Touch LCD – Touch To Focus etc.
People should recognize more often that touch screens are not just simple gimmicks and a newbie feat, there are really good advantages in having a touch screen and it’d be nice if Fuji can also recognize that, just like they did with WiFi.
In body stabilization is not needed. They have it in the kit lenses for beginners. All is well. It’s not needed in primes.
Touch LCD….yes, I completely agree. I try to press on my XE-1’s screen all the time.
In-body stabilization is at least in theory less effective than being in the lens and can’t be optimized for the specific lens (probably and especially with longer zooms).
On the flip side, it would make the zooms smaller and theoretically cheaper.
Not needed for primes? Hmm… I’d say it’s needed on the 27mm 2.8 as much as it is on the 18-55 2.8-4.0 zoom. just as an example.
It’s a different kind of compromise, not entirely better or worse than having it in the lens.
Well….55mm @ f4 it’s nice to have. 27mm 2.8, you don’t need it. OIS is well known to degrade image quality. How much? Unknown. But it takes more elements to implement it. Would ibis be nice…sure…but if they were going to do it. It would have been that way at release.
Asking for IBIS is a waste time.
Touch screen. I would love it. With smart phones these days, it’s instinct to try to touch the screen. Especially in the Q menu.
How can you say he doesn’t need stabilisation with that or other primes? How much do you know about his shooting style and requirements?
Well….its well know that that oly had IBIS, pretty easy for panny to implement it…..how many APSC mirrorless camera have it? none….maybe there is a reason for this. But noone ever wonders that….
@andrew
If you cant shoot at 40mm @2.8 without stabilization, then……….you need to learn how to properly hold a camera. and or you should go buy an oly em1 or what ever and be happy.
Why are there tripods? Why IS in the first place?
I find my self often in low light where shutter speed of 40 @F2.8 is just not enough – so I might have to go to 30 –
what then? if IS in lens or body would allow me to shoot at 20 or 30 at F2.8 ? It is like saying we do not need faster lenses as if you can’t hold steady at 40 at F2.8 then you just don’t know how to hold your camera –
I guess Olympus is then just making a big mistake with their much envied 5 Axis IBIS –
Personally I get better results as far as clarity and less blur with my Fuji X20 with IS vs my Fuji X100 and Fuji X100s with no IS – ( of course not the same IQ due to sensor size but I find IS a clear advantage in the X20 )
Please Ryan do share a little of your great wisdom by providing some instruction for me! How does a man or woman properly hold and stabilise a camera by hand from the back of a moving ute (pickup truck) driving on a rough outback track while trying to get a picture of mounted stockmen (cowboys) bringing cattle to the yards at dusk and not shooting from a moving vehicle would only mean missing the shot.
I agree – I do not know anyone that is not impressed with Olympus’s 5axis IBIS – old timers an Purists alike just can’t say enough about it – and yes I personally find IS a must for me – I can see a clear difference when say I shoot with my OMD-Em5 with a Prime and any one of my Nikon DSLRs with a Prime with no IS – the fact that Panasonic has now put IBIS in the GX7 for example and I hear Sony is doing it for an upcoming camera shows that there is an advantage –
People who have tested the new Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 with IS have raved about it and most all include that it is a better lens as it has IS –
I have the Fuji X100 and X100s which have no IBIS or IS in lens – and when I compare the images with my Fuji X20 with IS in lens I see a difference –
So yes many Purists will say they do not need IS period and they love manual focus and no Touch LCD and never retouch or crop a picture – then that is their personal choice – but I think there are more out there that would love to see Fuji use a 5 axis IBIS in their upcoming cameras – it simplifies things – no need to but IS in every lens adding cost and weight –
“Would ibis be nice…sure…but if they were going to do it. It would have been that way at release”
I don’t agree: look at Panasonic with the GX7! They really earned kudos with that camera in my and many others’ eyes! They always had lens stabilisation, and now also IBIS that can be used on primes…that’s the best you can ask for!
If the XE2 gets 80% Gold award, then the XT1 will surely get 90% Gold Plus award.
Well…I don’t see thay happening. Video is a big part of the test. Fuji is a fail in that area.
Hopefully Fuji will respond to the waxy skin problems now that DPReview made mention of it. Other than that, I’ve very much been enjoying my X-E2.
What waxy skin problems? Links?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52870573
Thanks for the link. Found this:
Facial Skin Smoothing Function
http://www.fujifilm.com/image_intelligence/photography/facial_skin_smoothing_function/
I think that there should be a setting making it possible to turn this feature off, since it explains part of the unwanted behavior (the other part being the usual NR).
Agree… “face smoothing – on/off” would be perfect.
I agree that that should be an option to disable. I guess shooting raw is the only workaround at the moment. Since ACR RC has come a long ways (i.e., allows for Fuji Camera Film Presets and better demosaic processing), shooting raw is a bit more palatable for Fuji/Adobe users than just a few weeks ago. Granted, Adobe still needs to even better support the x-trans conversions in the future.
I definitely noticed the problem with my X-E2, and never had that issue with the X-Pro 1. And I set NR to -2 in camera! I’m hoping for a FW solution as well…
Set NR to -2.
Wish Fuji will make an option to completely disable NR in Jpeg engine.
It doesn’t solve the problem really: I have very high ISO portraits (6400) that are really bad looking skinwise…and as stated before, I have NR set to -2
Yes, in my experience ISO 3200 is the top ISO at which I like human faces with the latest breed of camera firmware. ISO 5000 is acceptably plasticky, anything higher – and you have a cheesy “oil painting” for skin tones.
RAW solves that at the huge expense of increased storage cost and the loss of fabulous film simulation.
The new Release Candidate for ACR does a pretty good job at simulating the Fuji Film presets. Not sure I agree with “Huge” expense for storage, but I get what you’re saying. As a sports shooter that shoots raw and archives everything, my 98% full 2x10TB RAIDs hear ya! 😉
As a wedding photographer, I need a file server (my 2x8TB level 10 RAIDs hear yours!)), backups and remote location backups. With JPEG workflow, I can use a Dropbox for latter. With RAW workflow, I have to stockpile bare hard drives in a bank vault. Huge difference in costs!
(back to topic) Fuji, please make your “skin smoothing” optional!
LOL – Yea, my cloud storage (Backblaze) has been dealing with a constant stream from me for over 1.5 yrs now.. Still not done. hah! Yes…make skin smoothing optional!!
I use NR-2, it’s still present, unfortunately. I’m not too bothered personally, as I shoot RAW. But it’d be nice to have it go back to X-E1/Pro-1 levels for when I want to export a jpeg to my phone. 🙂
I imagine it’s very annoying for JPEG only shooters, though.
“By our tests, the X-E2’s measured sensitivities are around 1/2 – 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, shutter speed and aperture on the X-E2 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera.
It’s unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we’re disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous.”
When will fujifilm be honest about their ISO?
How do you use this ISO information? Does it really make any difference unless you are using artificial lights or a hand-held light meter?
Of course it would make a difference. If ISO is not standardized, it shouldn’t call iSo any more would it? In the real world shooting, you need to use a slower shutter speed for the same ISO, or you need to boost the ISO up. In the result you would get more grains. Even though I admit the camera’s IQ is amazing, but it was based on an inflated ISO. I couldn’t think of any other reason than fujifilm is purposely inflated their ISO so that its image quality would look amazing comparing to any others.
Took them long enough