We already had so many interesting new mirrorless cameras this year that it’s hard to keep up with all the news and reviews! Here are three links to reviews for three different mirrorlress cameras:
Ephotozine posted two interesting reviews one after another. First they published the Canon G1X full review (Click here) and than the Fuji X PRO 1 Full review (Click here). The Canon gets Recommended: “If image quality is of a high importance to you then the Canon Powershot G1 X is recommended, it would be nice if the 5fps shooting mode was available in all modes, rather than in just one of the scene modes.“. And the Fuji gets Highly Recommended: “The image quality is stunning, with excellent, and I really mean excellent pixel level detail, with excellent colour reproduction, great dynamic range, excellent high ISO noise results and excellent JPEG output straight from the camera.“
Pentaxforums published the full K-o1 review (Click here): “The RAW image quality is identical to that of the K-5, which makes the K-01 comparable to other high-end DSLRs if one’s primary purpose is to capture clear images.“
I think all three cameras have intruiguing aspects!
16 Responses
Pentax k-01 is a strange camera, not only the design, but it’s the same price than the K5, and i don’t see any advantages of the k-01 over the k5.
True, it is a strange camera but when it comes to price it is significantly cheaper than the K5 was at launch. you compare a new camera with one on the last sale before it becomes replaced. If we assume a similar price development for the k-01 it will lose about a third of that price in the next year or so…
> Ephotozine posted two interesting reviews one after another.
As IQ effectively reached the plateau, I think reviewers should start paying more attention to the handling and other aspects of the camera.
I think at some level that is already happening: after all m43 is scoring good not only because of IQ, but also size.
Otherwise, both reviews read as is they were rushed and cameras were simply held in hands for some time, not shot with for days.
Didn’t bother reading the GX1 review, but the X-PRO1 really seemed rushed to me as well. I think that the DSLRMagazine one is the most in depth of the X-PRO1 reviews i’ve seen so far. In any case i think the picture is clear by now (no pun intended):
-Excellent IQ and handling (on par with last generation full frame captors).
-Not a do-it-all type of camera, rather a specialized tool for discerning photographers (i see that as a compliment to FUJI for being focused).
-Very good lenses.
-Lots of “in camera processing” magic.
-Questionable AF in some situations.
-Expensive.
-Idiosyncratic
What do you think?
Yep, that seems to sum it up.
I am frustrated by all the reviews I’ve seen so far of the X-1 Pro. I am in an odd position in that I have just sold all my Nikon equipment and have decided to go all-mirrorless (I have a GH2 already.)
With the money I made from selling my Nikon gear, I could afford either the X-1 Pro and two lenses, or the Olympus E-M 5 and save some money for the future 35-100 Panasonic or 75/1.8 Olympus. But I can’t afford to invest in both systems, so I have to make a choice. And since the X-1 Pro is unlikely to be stocked by local dealers, I will have to rely on reviews for most of my information.
All the reviewers rave about the image quality of the X-1 Pro, but the fact is that I already am satisfied with the images I get from my GH2. I am more concerned about picture-taking capabilities. On paper the E-M 5 seems to have all the advantages over the X-1 Pro: It has a wider choice of lenses, stabilization, wireless TTL flash, higher burst rate, etc.
The only real advantage I can see in the X-1 Pro is that it has an optical viewfinder, and I love optical-viewfinder cameras (that’s what I learned on, and my favorite camera to use is still the Epson R-D 1.) I photograph mostly motion subjects, and the fact that an optical viewfinder never blacks out is a big advantage.
But the reviewers almost never comment about the optical viewfinder other than to mention that it exists. I know from the specifications that it is smaller than the R-D 1’s viewfinder (0.6x at most, vs. R-D 1’s 1.0x) and one reviewer described it as “dim,” but that’s all I have seen.
Nobody ever discusses how usable it really is. I get the sense from some reviews that they used the viewfinder in its electronic mode almost all the time.
Considering that this is the only distinguishing USER feature of the X-1 Pro (as opposed to technical features such as the sensor array) you would think reviewers would pay more attention to it! But no…
I must admit that I am biased towards the Fuji. But I would like to point out that although there are only 3 lenses currently available for the X-Pro1, these three fast lenses are proving to be top notch performers for serious photographers. True there are around 30 lenses available in native m43 mount but there are only 5 or six that are faster than f2.8.
actually, after looking at the link below, there are really only 5 lenses out of the 30 m43 lenses that I would really find useful as opposed to the 3 out of 3 in the X-Pro range.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html
(comment based on my style of photography)
Well the OVF is almost identical to the one in X100, so you have plenty of reviews covering that part. I suspect that no-one has paid it that much attention as it already was at the center of the show the last year when X100 was introduced. Back then the OVF/EVF was the only thing people really talked about. So just read those, or go to your closest store and check it out in person.
I have found plenty of reviews stating that they mostly used the OVF, as the EVF is a bit sluggish and nothing to hang in the christmas tree. Of course, if you do manual – then you have no options but to use the EVF.
My take on the OM-D/Fuji question came down to sensor size. I chose Fuji as it fits my photography better. It was really simple in the end, as I mostly do shallow DOF street and travel photography. That’s what it really boils down to, as both are really good cameras. But no camera is perfect.
I just sold all my canon gear, including a 5d mark ii to pay for the xpro1, amongst other things. I have no regrets either. I use the optical view finder and it works really well. When I have to, I use the evf, and it is ok. You can use it for manual focusing. My biggest gripe with manual focusing is the fly by wire system. But the best hing about the xpro1, besides image quality, is that it is an extremely enjoyable camera to use, as is the x100. it makes you want to go out and take photos and it is just a pleasure to use. I can’t really comment about the Olympus except I used to have an Olympus dslr. It was ok–dynamic range was poor—but in the end it was just another dslr.
Well, you can always wait for the XP1 to come to a camera store nearest you where you can hold and look through the OVF. But to get a preview, look through a X100. As far as lenses go for the XP1, they do have a road map of more to come.
Same dilemma here. What I like about the Fuji is that you can get the histogram in the viewfinder. The other reason is that according to one review, when using the OVF one can get 1000 shots on a single battery.
But I am thinking, if you are often taking photos of fast moving subjects, it might be a better idea to have a faster AF and deal with the blackouts.
The X-Pro arrived in stock today in Finland (several stores). I had my on preorder so now it’s just to go and pick it up.
I recently bought an x100, and the OVF has several advantages:
– You can see more than the sensor does, hence you can anticipate unfolding action and previsualize the scene before it happens.
– Battery lasts way more than when using the EVF.
– There’s no blackout when shooting.
– There’s no “frozen frame” when AFing.
– There’s no lag when the scene gets dim.
But, despite all those advantages, i find myself using the EVF most of the time. Why? Because:
-I can’t stand imprecise framing. I had a Voigtlander Bessa R3A rangefinder for a few months, and that just killed me. I’ve done a/b comparisons between the projected framelines of the OVF and the actual EVF framing, and the difference is *huge*.
-Not knowing *exactly* where the AF system focused. Particularly with this camera that just screams for wide open shots due to the buttery bokeh and super sharp lens even at f/2. Even with the corrected AF frame, I found the system cumbersome (you see 3 AF frames in the viewfinder!) and not that useful – for my style of shooting at least.
The EVF is not that bad as people might lead you to think. Probably on par with my GH2 in terms of size, brightness, etc – the refresh rate is certainly slower, though. The biggest drawback for me is that when you AF, the image freezes for a moment, which is confusing and can lead you to lose the decisive moment.
Keep in mind that the histogram isn’t “live” in manual exposure and the exposure isn’t live in the EVF. I’m still in favor of the Fuji, but these are two mistakes IMHO.
The Fuji system looks promising because I liked to use 28mm and 50 mm f1.4 lenses in the past. Currently I would be deterred by the lack of a superwide zoom or prime lens. Since I use a wide zoom and a macro a lot the OVF would be redundant for much of the time.
I used to use Pentax in the film era but have always been disappointed by the range of lenses for their APS-C slrs. The Pentax K-01 looks to me like an slr with the prism and viewfinder chopped off. It looks like a perfunctory effort which has the same mount to focal plane distance as my old 35mm slrs. Even if this thing had been available two years ago I wouldn’t have bought it simply because of its design.