Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Thanks to Nick Devlin for new review  (Read 2610 times)
BarbaraArmstrong
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288


« on: October 21, 2012, 12:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to Nick for taking the time and trouble to write up his experiences with the sample he had of the Fuji X-E1. These types of reviews make L-L my favorite on my "Favorites" list.  Loved the images -- enough to stir envy in those of us who live in areas with less fall color.  Maybe I missed something, but I was wondering what "advantages" the X-E1's EVF offered that made it a better experience for Nick than the Alpa99.  Maybe this question is better posed in the Cameras&Lenses section of the Forums, and I will look for a possible answer there, where more members are likely to see it.  Saw the review last night, and was surprised no one else had commented yet.  Maybe everyone is sleeping in on a Sunday morning.  --Barbara
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2012, 01:40:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Barbara.  Words like that make the hours worthwhile.

Re: EVF advantages: it's purely the form-factor. You can make a camera the size, weight and shape of an X-E1 except with an EVF. An A99 is a full-blown DSLR, so the 'benefits' of the EVF are minimal for me.

I should add that I was playing with the GH-3 yesterday with Michael,and I take back what I said about it having a superior EVF. I found it very directional - ie. unless my glasses and eyeball were dead centre, one side was smooshy.

Hope you're having a great Sunday.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2012, 02:37:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Just on evf again Nick, you mention in the conclusion that the OM-D and GH3 have superior EVFs...

The specs for each camera say that the Fuji's EVF is higher resolution than either the Panasonic or Olympus-
(GH3 -1.7m, OM-D 1.44m, Fuji XE1-2.36m)

I may be reading the specs incorrectly but if not is there some aspect of the Fuji EVF's performance which you found inferior?
I haven't used an EVF yet that i thought was decent but was hoping the Fuji's was a step up......

Thanks for the review!

Aaron
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2012, 03:24:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The refresh rate seems higher on the OM-D finder. Makes a big difference.  EVFs are a case where specs just don't translate into how the camera feesa when you use it. You've just got to try them for yourself to see what works for you.  

- N.

ps. image stabilization almost makes a big difference in how EVFs 'feel' on the eye. The Fuji EVF will likely be more pleasing when used with the OIS zooms.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 07:14:42 AM by ndevlin » Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2012, 01:00:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using X-Pro1 since April, and yesterday I immediately drove to the local camera store when I noticed they had X-E1 in stock (one!), and bought it right away. Now I have a complete travel/street system, X-Pro1 with wide lenses used with OVF (no lag), X-E1 with 60mm tele, and as a spare on longer trips. With 14mm in order this kit is just about perfect for my needs. Placed them in a compact camera bag which felt like empty compared to my D4 bag with fast zooms. One camera is not perfect for everything, but these cameras from Fuji have returned a considerable amount of fresh enthusiasm to my photography.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71202.0

Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 393



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2012, 08:30:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice review Nick. I was an early adopter of the X-Pro 1, love using it and it has brought some new enthusiasm for photography for me as well. I still have my dslrs but it sure is nice to carry around a small bag with me every day when I go to work and have a nice small portable system. That saying about the camera you have with you.... sure is valid statement. I am really hoping that Adobe will improve the raw support, as many have noted the issues.

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 05:29:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Nick,

I read your review on Sunday morning, and appreciate your thoughts on this camera. I saw the specs when it was announced & wondered if it might be the one small camera that I could use to fill for those days when a DSLR is not the best option & a compact is not good enough. I was trying to decide whether or not to buy an Xpro1 when the announcement of the XE1 was made. The only hang up I had was the EFV. The only experience I have with those is on my mothers Panny GH2 and it is horrible. A month ago I put in an order for the XE1 thinking that I will try the EFV and hope for the best. Now it seems as if perhaps I should not fear it, and may actually like it or at the very least learn to work with it.

I am eagerly awaiting the camera's arrival, it looks like it will be fun.

Warren
Logged

Warren
HowardG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2012, 03:47:21 PM »
ReplyReply

A few weeks back I had been looking for a compact system to complement my 5D MKII (for when I didn't want to carry a big, heavy kit) and weighed waiting for the Fuji X-E1 vs the Olympus OM.  I decided to go with the Olympus because of the demosaicing issues that had been raised using Lightroom.  Although the RAW conversion with the supplied software supposedly avoided these issues, I do my conversions in Lightroom and didn't want to deal with a new piece of software.  I am just curious as to thoughts (as noted in Alan's post) about this particular issue and how important it might be, as I have never used the Fuji or tried to convert it's RAW files (though I have seen pretty convincing examples on other sites).

Howard
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 03:48:52 PM by HowardG » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2012, 08:54:40 AM »
ReplyReply

A few weeks back I had been looking for a compact system to complement my 5D MKII (for when I didn't want to carry a big, heavy kit) and weighed waiting for the Fuji X-E1 vs the Olympus OM.  I decided to go with the Olympus because of the demosaicing issues that had been raised using Lightroom.  Although the RAW conversion with the supplied software supposedly avoided these issues, I do my conversions in Lightroom and didn't want to deal with a new piece of software.  I am just curious as to thoughts (as noted in Alan's post) about this particular issue and how important it might be, as I have never used the Fuji or tried to convert it's RAW files (though I have seen pretty convincing examples on other sites).

Howard

It's been interesting that so many reviews don't bring this up, since it is a common topic amongst users in various forums.  Lightroom certainly seems to be the worst at handling X-Trans files at the moment, but, there are still issues with the supplied camera software and in-camera jpegs when it comes to smoothing at low to medium ISOs.  In a nutshell, chroma smoothing is inherent to the CFA scheme, so, while this sensor certainly is tops in regards to high ISO performance, even bayer 16mp sensors WITH an AA filter have higher chroma resolution and overall better performance at low to mid ISO, so it's a trade off.  Plus, that is assuming ideal raw conversion, which we don't have yet, because it would take a complicated, multi-pass conversion process.

It seems that the fantastic low light performance of this sensor has reviewers glossing over the performance in good light, where other sensor options are better.  While some love the performance of X-Trans, others are refraining form buying into the system simply because of the new cfa and its trade offs.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 08:58:31 AM by douglasf13 » Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2012, 09:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

while this sensor certainly is tops in regards to high ISO performance

says which test ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 09:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

 Although the RAW conversion with the supplied software supposedly avoided these issues

Sandy MC did some testing with SilkyPix included = http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-part-3.html

so essentially while moire may or may not be present in your shot, negative effect of x-trans CFA pattern will always be present, so that was a bad trade off...
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2012, 11:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hold the press!!!

I found some strange behavior with X-E1 RAW files and LR 4.2. When importing RAW file from X-E1 LR 4.2 shows it cropped to 16:9 or something to that effect. You have to go to cropping tool and unlock the cropping and choose original, then the whole picture is revealed. More than annoying!

Funny thing is that if you choose RAW & JPEG, the RAW file behaves normally.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2012, 04:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

says which test ?


I meant in terms of aps-c sensors, since chroma smoothing is inherent to the design.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2012, 05:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I meant in terms of aps-c sensors, since chroma smoothing is inherent to the design.
I was actually asking which test showed that Fuji outperfroms the usual suspects - like latest Nikon or Pentax APS-C cameras ?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7231


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2012, 05:48:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have the Alpha 77, which has the same viewfinder as the Alpha 99, as far as I know. I also have an Alpha 900, which is said to have one of the better traditional viewfinders.

I have used both optical and EVF in parallell and I can live with both. I can agree with Nick's view that an EVF makes a lot more sense on a more compact camera. In the long term I think EVF will prevail. EVF will be better and the moving mirror is really adding complexity. In addition, an EVF can show what you will get. On the other hand EVF needs to improve.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks to Nick for taking the time and trouble to write up his experiences with the sample he had of the Fuji X-E1. These types of reviews make L-L my favorite on my "Favorites" list.  Loved the images -- enough to stir envy in those of us who live in areas with less fall color.  Maybe I missed something, but I was wondering what "advantages" the X-E1's EVF offered that made it a better experience for Nick than the Alpa99.  Maybe this question is better posed in the Cameras&Lenses section of the Forums, and I will look for a possible answer there, where more members are likely to see it.  Saw the review last night, and was surprised no one else had commented yet.  Maybe everyone is sleeping in on a Sunday morning.  --Barbara
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad