1996-1999: Casio QV10A1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 9502004-2007: Olympus C-50602006-2006: Fujifilm F202007-2010: Fujifilm F31fd2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR2012-2015: Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)2015- : Fujifilm X-T10 (+ 23mm and 56mm)Now you know. :)
mpgxsvcd: “This includes the rapid manual focusing process”
I have never heard “manual focusing” described in that manner. I wonder how it compares to even the slowest Auto Focusing in terms of speed?
They mean that rangefinder manual focus is fast compared to SLR manual focus, and I think that is indeed a fair statement.
Matthew Miller: Description error — not Nano GI. Lenses which have the Nano GI coating generally say "NANO GI" on the lens, rather than "SUPER EBC". The pictures clearly show the latter. And the press release at Fujifilm has no such mention. Perhaps an error crept into an early release of the specifications.
In the PR _here_, but note not in the one on Fujifilm's own web site: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n151021_01.html
Description error — not Nano GI. Lenses which have the Nano GI coating generally say "NANO GI" on the lens, rather than "SUPER EBC". The pictures clearly show the latter. And the press release at Fujifilm has no such mention. Perhaps an error crept into an early release of the specifications.
iudex: Nice looks, on the X-T10 it looks really retro. In my opinion this is the right way to make mirrorless lenses: small, so that they fit nicely on a light CSC bodies, but still reasonably fast (f2 is still pretty fast, 1 EV faster than "fast zooms").However we have to say a comparable DLSR lens costs half the price (or less), so overpriced (as usual with mirrorless lenses).
I don't think it's overpriced given the feature set. Can you name a comparable lens?
The Davinator: Great. Run out of 1 color and throw it all away. What a waste.
Epson should get some credit for their EcoTank line — AFAIK no one else has anything quite like it.
Wow. If we put up a wind turbine, we could power a large city with the amount of WOOSH going over people's heads in these comments.
The small size is a definite dealbreaker for everyone. When it comes to physical artifacts, bigger is always better. That's why people don't use 3.5×2" business cards anymore, and instead hand out 4×5" ones. In fact, the last big meeting I was at, all the top suits were handing out full broadsheet-format cards. Good thing I brought along my biggest attaché case for managing them all.
Deardorff: No Optical finder, no thanks.
> Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.
Some people might be extra sensitive to this, but for me at least, the current high-refresh-rate EVF screens make this a complete non-issue. If you're basing your opinion on last decade's EVF, I encourage you to look again.
> Add in the X10 body is just too damn small.
Note that we're talking about the X-T10, not the X10, which is a very different compact camera. But assuming you mean tthe X-T10... sure. It's not big. You may prefer the X-T1.
forpetessake: I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.
1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.
2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.
I don't think it's right to say the images are "underexposed", or that it's an attempt to cheat ISO numbers. The very few people who obsess about those numbers online aren't a big concern; people aren't likely to buy this camera over that value anyway.
Instead, they're part of the film simulation look Fujifilm is going for. They simply choose a lower exposure than you might as the default. The existence of a physical EV compensation dial makes this easy to change if you don't like it — you can leave it dialed up a notch.
I do wish, instead, that they'd made this a tunable parameter of the film simulation modes — not to harp on this too much, but.... Pentax does exactly that (there's a seven-point scale from low-key to high-key).
Stephan Def: I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).
If one can use a TV screen & do post-processing in-camera without the need for an addtional computer & software then that is a huge benefit for any user.
I don't think Fujifilm has to jump on the 4K bandwagon, just decent enough Video qualtiy would be good. Also the ability to record a short sound clip with a still image is very nice to have and would be technically easy to do.
What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. At the end of the day I could then just choose which ones I want to keep. More stuff like that, neat features to have implemented by exploiting existing hardware thru better software.
@123Mike — I said raw processing _options_. :)
I do wish the in-camera RAW processing had as many options as Pentax's does — I was surprised to read the praise for it in this review, because it's comparatively very limited. Pentax also immediately updates a preview (which fills the LCD, rather than being a very tiny thumbnail) as you change settings, not only after you make all of your choices. I hope Fujifilm implements this in a future version.
The X-T10 actually does have film simulation bracketing almost exactly like this. It can only do three different options, though, not five. And unfortunately, this mode disables RAW.
I tested out an XPro1 a couple of years ago. It has a magical feature where it can switch between EVF and OVF. I started out as believing in the OVF as a must-have and the EVF as a novelty, but over the two weeks I was using it, I found myself using the EVF more and more.
And the EVF in the X-T10 is much more modern and better on all counts — let alone the even larger one on the X—T1.
So, recently, I switched to the X-T10 as kind of a longer-term experiment. I'm coming from the very nice 100%-view pentaprism in Pentax cameras, and there are many things I miss from the old system and areas where Pentax definitely does things better (balanced by things where Fujifilm does other things better, of course). But the viewfinder just plain isn't something I even think about being different. The EVF is perfectly fine.
Francis Carver: "The Speed Booster is essentially a backwards teleconverter... shortening the focal length of the lens.. as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens... combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x, so a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then ... this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Wow, how wonderful, Metabones & Co. Who would give $649 for the privilege of giving up ultra wide angle perspectives? This product makes zero sense. You can get a pretty good lens, maybe even a pair of lenses, for that much money.
And, y'know. There's still also that math thing, which is just basic facts, not a justification.
I'm not justifying anything — like I said, I also think the price seems high. On the other hand, if someone has thousands of dollars in Canon glass and picks up a m43rds body as an addition to the system, maybe it's worth it. I guess Metabones' financial returns will tell the story.
Let me spell this out:
On a m43 camera, a native m43 lens with a focal length of 50mm has a focal length of 50mm — no crop. This gives a field of view approximately like that you would get on a full-frame camera with a 100mm lens.
On a m43 camera with a Speed Booster and a full-frame lens with a focal length of 50mm, the focal length actually becomes 35mm. This gives a field of view approximately like that you would get on a full-frame camera with a 70mm lens.
This is not "giving up ultra wide angle perspective" no matter how you look at it.
If you want to look at it that way, there is also no "crop" when using a non-native lens. "Crop" is just a way of normalizing focal lengths for comparison of field of view, but doesn't really change anything. However, the 70% reduction in focal length _is_ real.
Without commenting on the price (which I agree seems quite high for what you get), I think you're misunderstanding. Forget the full frame reference; on the camera it works on, this reduces the focal length of the mounted lens, so a 50mm lens becomes _wider_.
Nice. The price seems high, but the convenience and utility will totally be worth it. I have the Manfrotto Flex Arm in both the heavy duty and the lightweight versions, and the heavy duty one is too hard to move and not flexible enough, and the lightweight version won't stay in place and can't support more than its own weight. Basically, interesting idea, didn't work out. This seems a lot better.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The sample photos need heavy post-processing.
A lot of them _do_ seem to have a tending-towards-lower-key exposure choice — I suspect that's part of the design towards creating a specific film-like look.
I'm not a Fujifilm shooter (at least, not at present...) but I don't think there's a way to bias this other than using EV compensation or adjusting the exposure each time, which is a little bit unfortunate. You can adjust saturation ("color density") and shadow and highlight detail, but not this. With Pentax, each of the tone curves (roughly analogous to Fujifilm's film simulation) also has a "high key / low key" slider. Ah well — nothing's perfect.