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- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)2015- : Fujifilm X-T10 (+ 23mm and 56mm)Now you know. :)
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.
Karroly: All the pics in the gallery look underexposed...
I think it's mostly intentional, as part of the intended "film look". If you don't like that, expose differently.
The exposure choice looks great to me. It may be that you just have a different preference. Alternately, you may want to check your monitor calibration.
Howard S: it looks a lot like http://flashhavoc.com/godox-witstro-ar400-ring-flash-coming/
Cheetahstand also has amazing customer service. Not that Adorama is bad in this respect either, but I've been very, very happy with the personal touch.
HeyItsJoel: If it's done right, it should have the ability to tilt upwards so it can bounce flash off the ceiling!
It'd have to be way more powerful for that to work.
For what it's worth, we had this rumor for Pentax last year — http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52214695
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
iudex -- look at where they're made. The Metz 36 AF5 is a licensed product, made by Tumax/Icorp http://www.icorpandtumax.com/DSL88Series.html in Hong Kong. The 44 AF and higher models are still German-made.
Mike Yorkshire: Very sad news. Sadly the camera manufacturers have designed flash systems closely integrated with their cameras and then had the resulting flash made by Chinese workers. Metz would always find it difficult to keep up in this market - their products were always second to none.
For the last few years, Metz has done exactly that — all of their lower range (36 AF and down) is made in China and bears a strong resemblance to Tumax/Icorp generic rebadged flashes.